Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sayed Suhail Hyder vs State Of J&K on 16 September, 2023
Sr. No. 01
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Pronounced on : 16.09.2023
OWP No. 383/2003
Sayed Suhail Hyder, .....Petitioner(s)..
S/o Sayed Maqbool Hussain,
Age 39, R/o E.P-385, Dalpatian, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Virender Bhat, Advocate.
Vs
1. State of J&K, through Chief ....Respondent(s)..
Secretary.
2. Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu.
3. Mr. Ali Mohd. Sagar S/o Gulam
Qadir Charlu, Cabinet Minister,
Jammu and Kashmir Govt. New
Secretariat, Srinagar, A/P Member
J&K Legislative Assembly, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. F.A.Natnoo, Advocate for R-2.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has approached the Court for redressal of his grievance as
projected in the petition. Prior to filing of the present writ petition also the
petitioner had some favourable orders in his favour from the earlier
litigation though he had not been given the effect of the orders passed by
this Court in earlier round of litigation is the plea raised in the writ
petition.
2. In the present petition, the petitioner seeks implementation of order
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 945/1987 vide dated 18.12.1987
and submits that he be put in possession of Flat No.4 (Evacuee Flat),
Shahidi Chowk, Jammu after dispossessing the respondent No.4 from the
said Flat.
3. The petitioner claims to have been allotted the Flat by the respondent
No.2 and Lease Deed was executed on 20.11.1987 between the petitioner
and the custodian department. The respondent No.2 took possession of the
Flat forcibly on 20.11.1987.
4. The Writ Petition No. 945/1987 came to be filed by the petitioner against
the aforesaid action of the respondents and the petitioner vide order dated
18.12.1987 was allowed to be re-inducted in the Flat in question and the
cancellation order passed against the petitioner was also quashed. The
LPA also came to be dismissed which was filed by the respondent No.2
against the aforesaid order of 18.12.1987 with certain expunge of
observation passed by the writ Court in the aforesaid writ petition.
5. The respondent-Ali Mohd. Sagar also filed a writ petition claiming his
right also in the said Flat and the court in OWP No. 48/1988 disposed of
the writ petition being utterly misconceived.
6. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner seeking implementation of
the order dated 18.12.1987 passed in WP No. 945/1987 came to be
dismissed. The petitioner thereafter has filed the present petition again
seeking implementation of order dated 18.12.1987 passed by this Court in
the writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner.
7. The respondents have filed the reply wherein of course the orders passed
by the court from time to time is not being disputed, however, it is
submitted that the order passed by the court earlier on 18.12.1987 in
WP(C) No. 945/1987 was modified by the Division Bench and the rights
of the private respondent remained intact. The private respondent having
his right intact in pursuance to the directions passed by the Division
Bench, the petitioner cannot claim any relief in the writ petition against
the respondent.
8. The official respondent No.2 has also submitted in the objections that the
petitioner has no right in the Flat in question in view of the developments
which had taken place pursuant to the order passed by the Writ Court on
18.12.1987. The respondent has also submitted that the order dated
13.11.1987 whereby the respondent-Ali Mohd. Sagar was allotted the Flat
has not been challenged by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner
cannot claim his right in the Flat in question in pursuance to the order
passed by this Court in December, 1987.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has
submitted that the petitioner may not be interested in the Flat in question
after such long time, however, submits that the orders passed by the court
by virtue of which the petitioner was held entitled to the Flat was
otherwise required to be given effect to by the official respondents and the
order passed by the Court respectively by the respondents.
10. The Court need not interpret the orders passed by this Court from time to
time in different petitions qua the relief sought by him in the present
petition. Much water has flown down now from the time the directions
dated 18.12.1987 came to be passed by this Court in WP No. 945/1987
and it may not be possible to put the petitioner in possession of the Flat in
question on the same terms and conditions which were in vogue when the
initial order of allotment came to be passed in his favour on 20.11.1987
by the official respondents. The directions passed earlier in writ petition is
sought to be again implemented through the present petition. The court is
not required to and cannot in the present petition reiterate the directions
which have been passed in that writ petition and pass the directions for
implementation of those directions. Moreover, the said directions of
18.12.1987 stood modified by the Division Bench and the directions
which are sought in the present petition also came up for consideration in
the contempt petition which came to be disposed of by this Court. It may
be mentioned herein that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner may not be otherwise interested in the
subject matter of the present writ petition in which the petitioner seeks to
be put back in the Flat in question.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion made by the Court and the submission
by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may not be interested
otherwise in possessing the Flat, the petition stands dismissed.
(PUNEET GUPTA)
JUDGE
Jammu:
16.09.2023
Pawan Chopra
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No
