Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Approach the Court for Justice With Clean Hands

0
356
Jammu & Kashmir High Court, Prohibiting Use Of Pellet Guns, Power to Detain Is Not A Power To Punish, Justice Rajnesh Oswal

On 6th August 2020, Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul heard the case of Ghar Singh vs Union Territory of J&K and others, via video-conferencing. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition as it was devoid of any merit.

Facts of the case

On 30th June 2020, the Respondents issued an order to demolish the petitioner’s residential house. The petitioner filed for an instant Writ Petition seeking to quash the order dated 30th June 2020. Further, he sought the Court’s direction to the respondents to refrain from demolishing the residential house. The facts presented are according to the Writ Petition.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the owner of the landed properties in Village Paloura. He constructed his residential house over those landed properties. The land falls under Khasra no. 987. The Respondents passed an order for the eviction of the petitioner and demolition of his residential house under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act. The Respondents did not give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Records show that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the land over which his residential house is constructed. Thus, there is no question of encroachment over the said land. Further, the Counsel argued that a person named Vineet is a stranger to the land. Thus, it has no right or title over the land. Besides, the respondents have not even properly demarcated the land. The petitioner sought the Court to prevent forceful dispossession of his land.

Arguments of the Respondents

The Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner misrepresented the facts. Besides, he came to the Court with unclean hands. About 20 kanals of the land under Khasra no. 986 is recorded as Child Graveyard. The Respondents received several complaints of encroachment of land under the said Khasra. Thus, they constituted a Demarcation Committee.

The said committee submitted a detailed report on 25th January 2020. The report revealed the encroachment of land under Khasra no. 986 by Vineet that the house was illegally constructed. There was one previous occasion where his building was demolished. The present impugned order of demolition is for Vineet. The said order is not passed against the petitioner whose land is under Khasra no. 987 and not Khasra no. 986. The land under Khasra no. 986 is properly demarcated. Hence, the respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition.

Court’s Analysis

It is unequivocal that the petitioner came to the Court with half facts. He has not disclosed the real position obtaining on the spot. The respondents constituted a Demarcation Committee. Thus, the petitioner’s contention that there was no demarcation of land conducted is invalid.

Moreover, it transpires clear that the respondents did not issue the order against the petitioner. The petitioner did not disclose all facts in the Writ Petition. A person who approaches the Court for Justice must come with clean hands. The Petition can be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts.

Court’s Decision

The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Thus, the Court dismissed the Petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.