Renka Devi vs State And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 877 j&K

                                                                        Sr. No.354

                  HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                             AT JAMMU


                                                     OWP No. 409/2012
                                                     IA Nos. 567/2012
                                                     01/2018

                                                     Reserved on 11.08.2021.
                                                     Pronounced on 13 .08.2021

Renka Devi                                                         ..... Petitioner (s)

                                   Through :- Mr. Achal Sharma Advocate

                             V/s

State and ors                                                     .....Respondent(s)

                                   Through :- Mr Suneel Malhotra G.A.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE


                                    JUDGMENT

1 The petitioner, in this petition, has, inter alia, prayed for the following

reliefs:

(i) Issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly respondent No. 4 not to allow respondent No.5 to raise construction of School Building of Primary School Hanswar Village Affani in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case;

(ii) Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to raise the construction of the aforesaid School Building duly allotted to the petitioner in view of the Agreement dated 20.04.2011 with the husband of the petitioner; and

(iii) Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment to the petitioner in terms of the Agreement for completion of the construction work.

OWP No. 409/2012

2 The brief facts of the case are that the State Education Department

sanctioned a new Primary School in the year 2008 at Hanswar, Paddar under

SSA Scheme after converting the EGS Centre which was functioning in the

house of the petitioner without any rent since 2004. It is submitted that since

due to non-availability of land for construction of aforesaid Primary School,

the construction work could not be initiated by the Department, the husband of

the petitioner, who was working as EV in EGS Centre, Hanswar, and was also

converted as ReT in the year 2008, on asking of the VLEC members and also

by the then ZEO, donated his land for construction of the school building and

that an Agreement was also executed between the husband of the petitioner and

the then ZEO to the effect that the construction work would be allotted to the

petitioner, who was engaged as Chowkidar for the aforesaid EGS Centre. It is

claimed that thereafter the petitioner was told to initiate the construction work

and was also told that an advance payment of Rs.0.75 lac would be released in

her favour after completion of some formalities. It is submitted that due to non

payment of advance amount, the work could not be initiated, more so, the ZEO

was also transferred and respondent No.4, who joined at his place has failed to

act upon in terms of the Agreement aforesaid as the Panchayat Members, who

were not having good terms with the family of the petitioner, approached the

concerned Authorities with a request that the donated land of the petitioner is

not feasible for opening of New Primary School. It is further submitted that the

inhabitants of village Hanswar including the VLEC member approached the

Deputy Commissioner, Kisthwar with a representation requesting the Deputy

Commissioner to allow the petitioner to do the allotted work, who, in turn

directed respondent No. 3 to verify the fact. It is pleaded that respondent No. 4

has verbally directed respondent No.5 to start construction of New Primary

OWP No. 409/2012

School over the land of the petitioner in violation of the norms. It is pleaded by

the petitioner that she spent more than Rs.50,000/- for dumping the material

for the said construction of the aforesaid School, more so she could not

cultivate his agricultural land donated for the said purpose during these two

harvesting seasons. It is submitted that the aforesaid facts were brought to the

knowledge of respondent No.3 by the inhabitants of village Affani and

respondent No.3 by virtue of order dated 16.03.2012 directed respondent No.4

to stop the work henceforth. However, respondent No.4 by throwing all the

norms and agreement to wind has verbally directed respondent No.5 to start

construction of the School Building despite the fact that respondent No.3 has

directed respondent No.4 to stop the construction work.

3 On service of notice, the respondents put their appearance and filed

objections. The stand of the respondents is that the EGS centre Hanswar was

opened in the year 2004 on the recommendations of VLEC Affani, Zone

Paddar and memorandum of understanding duly signed between husband of the

petitioner and VLEC of the revenue village Affani. It is submitted that as per

the guidelines for opening of EGS Centre, it was obligatory on the part of

village Level Education Committee to provide the accommodation for the

students enrolled in the said EGS center and in accordance with the these

guidelines, EGS centre Hanswar was made functional in the year 2004 in the

house of husband of the petitioner, namely Jia Lal who was also engaged as

EV in the said Center. In the year 2008, the said EGS Center was upgraded to

the level of Primary School and consequent thereupon, school building was

sanctioned by the Department concerned under SSA in the year 2010-11. It is

also submitted that ZEO Paddar had paid rent to husband of the petitioner @

Rs.200 per month, as such, the plea of the petitioner that rent has not been paid

OWP No. 409/2012

is baseless It is submitted that the petitioner has not been engaged as

Chowkidar in the said EGS Centre as the said centre was running in her house.

That the then ZEO Paddar requested VLEC Affani to provide the land for

construction of school building which submitted Resolution in favour of

husband of petitioner and Mr. Joginder Singh. It is submitted that due to

Panchayat elections in the year 2011, neither the Agreement was signed, nor

the construction work was assigned to anyone, however, the ZEO Paddar

directed JE SSA to submit the feasibility report of the land donated by husband

of the petitioner and Mr. Joginder Singh and as per the direction of ZEO, JE

SSA Zone Paddar submitted the feasibility report wherein it was submitted that

land owner Mr. Joginder Singh should be granted permission for construction

of the aforesaid School as his land was found fit for construction of school

building and as per the recommendation of JE, Mr. Joginder Singh was

directed to start the construction of Primary School under supervision of VLEC

Affani. It is submitted that in pursuance of the direction of ZEO Paddar, Mr.

Joginder Singh has also completed the construction of the said School upto

plinth level. With regard to the plea of the petitioner that she has dumped

material over the land, it is submitted that respondent No.4 had never directed

the petitioner for initiation of construction work on her land, for, the JE

concerned had recommended the land of respondent No.5 fit for construction

of school building. Lastly, it is submitted that all the norms have been

complied with by the official respondents and due to pendency of this writ

petition, no further work has been done by respondent No.5.

4 Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

OWP No. 409/2012

5 As is evident from the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, the

land, which was proposed to be donated by husband of the petitioner, was not

taken over by the respondents and instead land donated by Mr. Joginder Singh

was found more suitable for construction of School building and was taken

over by the respondents also. It is because of this reason and as per the

recommendations of JE concerned, Mr. Joginder Singh, who had donated his

land for construction of the School building, was directed to raise the

construction. He had even completed the construction upto plinth level when

the petitioner filed the instant petition and an interim order of status quo passed

by this Court. The petitioner without any right has successfully stalled the

construction of School building which has deprived the children of the area of

the School building. The husband of the petitioner, who was earlier engaged as

Education Volunteer in the EGS Center which was running in his house

eventually became ReT and General Line Teacher after the School aforesaid

was upgraded as Government Primary School.

6 It is true that the husband of the petitioner had offered his land for

construction of the School aforesaid on the condition that he would be allotted

the construction work, but the respondents found the land offered by

Mr. Joginder Singh more suitable for construction of School building and,

accordingly, directed Joginder Singh to raise the construction. The husband of

the petitioner, a Government employee, was otherwise not entitled to engage in

the construction activities of the School. The petitioner has, thus, no locus in

the matter and she has filed the instant petition only for the reason that she is

the wife of Jia Lal (husband) who claims to have donated the land for

construction of School building. The writ petition, on the face of it, is grossly

misconceived and, as a result of filing of this frivolous petition, the children of

OWP No. 409/2012

the area have been deprived of the School building for the last about nine

years. Neither the petitioner, nor her husband has a right vested with them to

raise the construction of the School building and, therefore, no mandamus

could be granted for directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to raise

the construction of School building aforesaid. It appears that a Government

teacher, who has offered his land for construction of School building, is

interested to raise the construction of School to earn additional income.

7 For the foregoing reasons, this petition is found to be grossly

misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed along with exemplary costs of

Rs.10000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner in the Advocates' Welfare Fund

within a period of four weeks from today.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE Jammu 13 .08.2021 Sanjeev

Whether the order is speaking: Yes

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No