Anoop Singh And Others vs State Of J&K And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1664 j&K

                                                                            Sr. No. 4



     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU
CJ Court

Case: OWP No. 1357 of 2015

Anoop Singh and Others                                     .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

                                   Through :- Smt. Monika Kohli, Advocate.

                          v/s

State of J&K and Others                                             .....Respondent(s)

                                   Through :- Sh. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG.
                                              Sh. Raman Sharma, AAG.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

                                      ORDER

01. Heard Smt. Monika Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioners.

02. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking writ in the

nature of mandamus commanding the respondents-State authorities to

implement the judgment and order dated 14.09.2012 passed by this Court in

OWP No. 1301 of 2012, 'Anoop Singh and other vs. State of J&K and others'.

A further prayer has been made that the State respondents no. 3 to 6 be directed

not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land

falling under Khasra nos. 163 and 164 as per the revenue record till the

implementation of the judgment and order dated 14.09.2012 as referred to

above.

03. In pith and substance, the petitioners by means of this writ petition are

asking for the implementation of the judgment and order passed by this court in

the earlier writ petition and in the meantime to restrain the respondents from

inferring with their possession.

04. A fresh writ petition for implementing the judgment and order of a writ

court is not maintainable. Invoking of writ jurisdiction for implementing its

earlier judgment is totally unheard of. There is no purpose in issuing fresh

directions when earlier directions already exists.

05. It may be trite to mention here that by the earlier judgment and order

dated 14.09.2012, the court has disposed of the petition providing that the

respondents shall take possession of the land of the petitioners strictly in

accordance with the mandate contained in State Land Acquisition Act, if same

is required for public purpose.

06. It is not in dispute that the part of land belonging to the petitioners as

claimed by them under Khasra nos. 163 and 164 has already been acquired by

issuing a notification dated 26.12.2011 under Section 4(1) of the State Land

Acquisition Act and same is not under challenge.

07. In view of the above as directions already exist that the respondents shall

take possession strictly in accordance with law, there is no necessity for

repeating or issuing any fresh directions in that regard. In fact a writ for

implementing the order of the writ court is virtually a successive writ petition

for the same cause of action which is not permissibly in law.

08. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take

recourse to other measures open to them in law for implementation of the

earlier directions of this court.

                               (SANJAY DHAR)              (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                      JUDGE                CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
10.12.2021
Sunita.