Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2474 J&K
Judgement Date : 29 October, 2025
Serial No. 12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CCP(S) No. 172/2023
Tilak Raj & Ors.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate.
Vs
Sachin Kumar Vaishya & Anr.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Assisting Counsel vice
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1.
Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate for R-2.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
(29.10.2025)
01. The writ petition-OWP No. 560/2003 titled "Tilak Raj &
Ors. Vs State of J&K & Ors." came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble
Division Bench by virtue of an order dated 22.12.2022 with express
and categoric observations to the effect that land of the petitioners
has been appropriated by the Municipal Corporation Jammu for
development of a park named 'Vijaya' at Nai Basti opposite Peer
Baba, Jammu, way back in 1970 without compensating the owners
of the land in reference. It further came to be observed that even the
Administrative Department, in its communication in the month of
March 2015, directed the processing of the case for land acquisition
as per the revenue records, and to this effect even the Municipal
Corporation Jammu, endorsed the position that requisite funds
were available to meet the cost of acquisition of the subject land.
02. The Hon'ble Division Bench came to give go-ahead to the
Municipal Corporation Jammu as well as the Deputy Commissioner,
Jammu, to acquire the land in question by initiating the process of
acquisition by providing fair compensation for the land in reference
to the petitioners strictly as per the rules governing the field.
03. A writ cause of 2003, even as on date in the month of
ending October 2025, has not seen the closure which is a very sad
state of affairs relating to the manner in which the writ respondents
have taken the indulgence of the Hon'ble Division of this Court as a
matter of ride rather than respect.
04. This contempt petition was filed by the petitioners, all of
whom in the year 2023 were above 70 years of age.
05. Pursuant to order dated 18.09.2024, Statement of facts
to the contempt petition came to be filed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Jammu.
06. In the statement of facts so submitted, there is a
communication dated 30.09.2024 from the end of the Assistant
Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu to the Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation Jammu seeking placement of an indent from Jammu
Municipal Corporation for initiating the acquisition proceedings.
07. The very fact that it is only in response to the contempt
petition that in the name of an exercise the office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Jammu came forward with the issuance of
communication No. DCJ/SQ/Misc/2024-25/3570-71 dated
30.09.2024 to the Municipal Corporation Jammu is a pointer to the
fact that but for the contempt petition even this much
communication would not have been issued from the end of the
office of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu to the Municipal
Corporation Jammu, which in turn has not bothered to even
respond to the said communication of the office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Jammu.
08. This is a clear-cut case of continuing wilful contempt of
the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment and that constrains this Court
to frame Rule (ROBKAR) against the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu,
namely, Sh. Rakesh Minhas and the Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation Jammu, namely, Sh. Devansh Yadav.
09. Registrar Judicial, Jammu to frame Rule (ROBKAR)
against the above-named two officials and notify them for their
personal appearance in the case on the next date of hearing.
10. List on 18.11.2025.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 29.10.2025 Bunty
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!