Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rashpaul Singh vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 30 October, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3516-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 27.10.2025
Pronounced on 30.10.2025
Uploaded on 30.10.2025
Whether the operative part or full judgment
is pronounced: Full judgment.
CJ Court:
LPA No. 255/2025
Cav No. 2407/2025
Rashpaul Singh ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate
v/s
Union Territory of J&K and others .... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Mr. Achal Sharma, Advocate for caveator
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
PER OSWAL J.
1. Notice, waived by Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
With the appearance of Mr. Achal Sharma, Advocate on behalf of
respondent No. 4, caveat shall stand discharged.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
matter is heard finally.
3. The brief facts of case are that the father of the appellant, namely, Sewa
Singh and that of respondent No. 4, namely, Kaka Singh, were real
brothers, being sons of Late Kahan Chand and the displaced persons of
Pak Occupied Kashmir (POK). Their names were recorded in Form-Alif
issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The father of the both appellant and
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3516-DB
respondent No. 4 had expired since long. Respondent No. 4 got married
with one Mohan Singh.
4. The Government announced a scheme under the banner of "Prime
Minister Relief Package" for the rehabilitation of the displaced families
from POK and as per the eligibility criteria, the claimant/head of the
displaced persons' family or his/her successor/heir residing within the
State (now UT) should be a part of 36,384 families, belonging to any of
the following categories:
a. POK J&K 1947 Displaced Persons, and
b. Chamb 1965 and 1971(camp/non-camp) Displaced Persons.
5. In order to claim the benefit of the scheme, the appellant filed a suit for
declaring him as legal heir of deceased Sewa Singh for the purpose of
availing the benefits of the above-mentioned scheme and the court of
learned Additional Mobile Magistrate (Munsiff), R. S. Pura vide judgment
and decree dated 22.03.2018 declared the appellant as the legal heir of late
Sewa Singh. In the said suit, respondent No. 4 had filed an application
under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for arraying her as
defendant, but the same was dismissed by the court vide order dated
13.03.2018.
6. The respondent No. 4, in turn, filed a suit, titled, before the court of
Additional Mobile Magistrate (Munsiff), R. S. Pura seeking declaration in
her favour as the legal heir of deceased Kaka Singh and the said suit came
to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3516-DB
7. When the appellant applied with respondent No. 3 to avail the benefits of
the scheme being legal heir of deceased Sewa Singh, respondent No. 4
raised objection to the same by submitting the judgment and decree dated
22.03.20218, thereby claiming 50% of the share of the compensation
under the scheme.
8. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30.04.2019 divided the share of one
time settlement into two parts and granted 50% of the share to the
respondent No. 4. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order
dated 30.04.2019 on 14.05.2019 before the Divisional Commissioner,
Jammu but the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2021 on
account of it being not maintainable. Thereafter, the revision petition
preferred by the appellant before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue),
J&K, met with the same fate in terms of order dated 05.07.2022.
9. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.
976/2023, titled, 'Rashpaul Singh vs. Union Territory of J&K and others',
thereby assailing the order dated 30.04.2019 primarily on the ground that
the family of late Sewa Singh was a separate family/entity and the
appellant had filed a separate claim for compensation under the scheme,
after getting the judgment/decree dated 22.03.2018 being legal heir of
Sewa Singh but respondent No. 4 without any right or interest being the
legal heir of Kaka Singh filed her objections claiming 50% of the share of
the compensation and the respondent No. 3 without affording any
opportunity of hearing to him passed the order dated 30.04.2019. It was
also urged by the appellant that the judgment and decree relied upon by
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3516-DB
respondent No. 3 while passing the order impugned was in respect of
status of respondent No. 4 being legal heir of deceased Kaka Singh and not
Sewa Singh.
10. The respondent No. 4, being the contesting respondent, filed the response
to the writ petition stating therein that the father of the appellant namely,
Sewa Singh and her father Kaka Singh were real brothers, being the sons
of Late Kahan Chand, and as per Form Alif were displaced persons of the
POK, 1947, thereby constituting single family. Therefore, respondent No.
4 is entitled to 50% of the share of the said package meant for the families
of the displaced persons.
11. The learned Writ Court vide judgment dated 30.09.2025 dismissed the writ
petition preferred by the appellant and this is how the appellant has come
up before this Court through the medium of instant intra court appeal for
the purpose of assailing the judgment on the grounds inter alia that the
learned Writ Court did not consider the vital aspect of the case that the
decree of the civil court produced by respondent No. 4 and relied upon by
the respondent No. 3, was obtained by instituting a false and frivolous suit,
by arraying the members of her family only and the order dated
30.04.2019 has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. It is
also contended that in terms of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 15(B) of Cabinet
Order No. 578-C of 1954, the interest of allottee, who has died, would
devolve only on those members of the family, who are mentioned in Sub
Rule (2) of Rule 15(B) of Cabinet order No. 578-C of 1954 and not by the
provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 but the learned Single Judge
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3516-DB
had opined that the daughter of the displaced persons would be entitled to
share of the compensation sanctioned under the scheme in terms of Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, without considering the fact that respondent No. 4
was a married daughter and was debarred to inherit any interest in terms of
Sub Rule (2) of Rule 15(B) of Cabinet order No. 578-C of 1954.
12. In Form Alif, the names of Kaka Singh and Sewa Singh, both sons of
Kahan Chand have been mentioned. The appellant, in fact, wants to
deprive respondent No. 4 from claiming the benefit under the scheme by
placing reliance upon Sub Rule (2) of Rule 15(B) of the Cabinet Order
578-C of 1954. It needs to be noted that the issue involved in this case is
not in respect of devolution of interest in the land allotted to the displaced
persons but in respect of compensation announced by the Central
Government.
13. A perusal of Rule 15(B) of Cabinet Decision (supra) reveals that if an
allottee dies, his interest in the allotted land has to devolve upon other
members of his family in whose favour allotment of land has been
originally made or regularized under these rules and on those who may
have the members of the family by way of marriage, birth or adoption after
allotment, excluding those who may have died earlier or may have left the
family on account of marriage or adoption. A plain reading of the Rule
supra makes it amply clear that it deals with the devolution of the interest
in the allotted land only and not in respect of the compensation. Clause 5
of the said scheme mentioned above, does not also provide for denial of
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3516-DB
compensation in favour of the married female heir of the head of displaced
persons' family.
14. While dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant, learned
Single Judge has also taken note of the opinion dated 09.07.2024 of the
Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Jammu and
Kashmir to the Department of Disaster Management, Relief,
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, that the daughter of a displaced person
would be entitled to share in the compensation under the scheme in view
of the provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
15. We have examined the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court and we
do not find any reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the well-reasoned
judgment. As such, the instant appeal is found to be misconceived.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRINAGAR:
30.10.2025
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No
