Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ujjagar Singh vs Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir Through on 6 October, 2023
Sr. No. 12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 31/2022
CM Nos. 4311/2022 &
2502/2022
Ujjagar Singh, Aged, 53 years, S/O .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
S. Harnam Singh, R/O Chatha Mill, Tehsil
& District, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Rameshwar P Sharma, Advocate.
v/s
1. UT of Jammu & Kashmir through .....Respondent(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to Government
Public Works (R&B) Department, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Executive Engineer, Construction Division
No. 1 PWD (R&B), Jammu.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B),
Sub-Division, Beli Charana, Jammu.
4. Junior Engineer, PWD (R&B) Sub-
Division, Beli Charana Jammu.
5. SHO, Police Station Satwari, Jammu.
6. Incharge Police Post, Chatha Mill, Jammu.
7. Harbans Singh, S/O Gian Singh, R/O
Karan Bagh, Jammu.
8. Gurcharan Singh, S/O S. Amar Singh, R/O
Pir Baba More, Tehsil and District Jammu.
Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
06.10.2023
(Per:-Sanjeev Kumar-J)
1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment dated 14.09.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge (in short the "Writ Court") in OWP No. 1094/2014
titled, "Ujjagar Singh Vs. State of J&K & Ors.", whereby the learned Writ
Court has dismissed the petition of the petitioner on the ground that he does not
have locus standi to maintain the petition. The learned Writ Court has also come
to a conclusion that the stand of the appellant that the road has been encroached
by raising construction in violation of the provisions of the Ribbon Development
Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") has been belied by the stand of official
respondents.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Writ Court is correct and
unexceptionable. There appears to be a private dispute with regard to some land
between the appellant and some private respondents and that has prompted the
appellant to don the role of social activist and raise the issue of encroachment of
the road in violation of the Act. The stand of the respondents clearly indicates
that the construction, which has been raised by the private respondents, is
50 (fifty) feet away from the center of the road and, therefore, the provisions of
the Act are not attracted.
3. Be that as it may, it is the duty of the official respondents to assure
that nobody including the petitioner and the respondents make any sort of
encroachment within the prescribed limits from the center of the road on both
the sides.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the
well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court. The appeal, therefore,
fails and is, accordingly dismissed, alongwith connected applications.
We, however, make it clear that dismissal of the appeal shall not be construed to
mean that the official respondents, particularly, Public Works Department is not
under obligation to ensure that no encroachment is made by any person within
the prescribed limits from the center of the road.
(Mohan Lal) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
06.10.2023
Ram Krishan
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
