Case BriefsHigh Courts

High Court of Jammu And Kashmir: While deciding upon the present writ petition wherein the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be asked to not cause any sort of interference into their land and should be desisted on that ground, the Single Bench of M.K Hanjura, J. dismissed the petition and held that the attached annexure by the petitioners spells out that the land in question is State land and is in the illegal occupation of the petitioners.

As per the facts, the petitioners are the owners in possession of the land situated at Village Zainakote, Srinagar along with a chunk of the State land “Khalisa Sarkar” is also in their possession for the last 23 years, which further has vested in them under the “Roshni Act” subsequently applying for vesting of ownership rights before the respondents. The petitioners state that they are being asked to vacate the land without being granted any compensation in return for which they are liable.

The High Court perused the records and found favour with submissions of Respondent 2 Chief Engineer, PWD who stated that no land has been acquired by his office for any purpose which leads to no question of payment of compensation to the petitioners. Respondents 3 and 4 stated that the compensation amount in lieu of the land acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway was released in favour of the State. As per the revenue extracts obtained in respect of the said land, petitioners do not have any proprietary right over the said land and in compliance to the revenue records the said land has been shown to be in the occupation of the department of public work.

Therefore, the petition was found to be on no merits and deserved to be dismissed as Annexure (p1) attached to the petition is an extract of Girdawari relating to the land on which the petitioners lay their claim, and the said annexure states that petitioners are in illegal occupation of the land and for which they cannot seek any compensation. [Syed Manzoor Ahmad v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 256, dated 23-04-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Expressing serious concern over the issue pertaining to government bungalows occupied by former Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the 3-judge bench of A.R. Dave, N.V. Ramana and R. Banumathi, JJ held that such an act is bad in law and the concerned respondents shall hand over possession of the bungalows occupied by them within two months from the date of this order  and the State Government shall also recover appropriate rent from the occupants of the said bungalows for the period during which they were in unauthorized occupation of the said bungalows.

Examining the question that whether the provisions of Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 are valid or contrary to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, the Court held that the position of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet Ministers of the State cannot stand on a separate footing after they demit their office. Moreover, no other dignitary, holding constitutional post is given such a facility. For the afore-stated reasons, the 1997 Rules are not fair, and more so, when the subject of “salary and allowances” of the ministers, is governed by Section 4 (1) (a) of the 1981 Act. Stating that the 1997 Rules are not statutory but only executive instructions, it was held that when the 1981 Act enables the Chief Minister to have residential accommodation only during his tenure and for 15 days after completion of his tenure, the 1997 Rules providing for an accommodation for life to the Chief Minister cannot be said to be legal and valid as If there is any variance in statutory provision and executive instruction, the statutory provision would always prevail.

It was further held that public property cannot be disposed of in favour of any one without adequate consideration. Allotment of government property to someone without adequate market rent, in absence of any special statutory provision, would also be bad in law because the State has no right to fritter away government property in favour of private persons or bodies without adequate consideration and therefore, all such allotments, which have been made in absence of any statutory provision cannot be upheld. If any allotment was not made in accordance with a statutory provision at the relevant time, it must be discontinued and must be treated as cancelled and the State shall take possession of such premises as soon as possible and at the same time, the State should also recover appropriate rent in respect of such premises which had been allotted without any statutory provision. [Lok Prahari v. State of U.P., 2016 SCC OnLine SC 750, decided on 01.08.2016]