Bodh Raj Khajuria Vs. Union of India and ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/984101
CourtJammu and Kashmir High Court
Decided OnMar-05-2013
JudgeHon?ble Mr. Justice M. M. Kumar
AppellantBodh Raj Khajuria
RespondentUnion of India and ors
Excerpt:
high court of jammu and kashmir at jammu. lpaow no. 2 of 201.bodh raj khajuria petitioners union of india & ors respondent !mr. c. m. koul, advocate ^mr. k. k. pangotra, asgi. mr. h. a. siddiqui, aag honble mr. justice m. m. kumar, chief justice honble mr. justice mansoor ahmad mir, judge date:05. 03.2013 :judgment : m. m. kumar, cj 1 the instant appeal under clause 12 of the letters patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2011 rendered by the learned single judge of this court.2. the appellant-writ petitioner has claimed before the learned single judge that his crop was damaged by the indian army movement on indo pak border during its operation prakarm. the union of india-respondent had floated a scheme, sanctioning payment of compensation/ex-gratia to such farmers. the appellant-writ petitioner had received first and third instalments and had laid claim for payment of the second instalment which was allegedly withheld without any justification”3. the union of india-respondents took the stand that the appellant-writ petitioner was not rendered disabled by the operation prakarm to cultivate his land because there were no mines spread in his land obstructing the cultivation. on the ground that the aforesaid stand taken by union of indiarespondents was not controverted by placing any material on record, the learned single judge non-suited the appellant-writ petitioner for issuance of directions to pay him the second instalment.4. we have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned single judge is unexceptionable and would not call for any interference by this court.5. a perusal of para 3 of the objections filed by the union of india-respondents to the writ petition would show that the second instalment was sanctioned only to such farmers who could not cultivate the subsequent crops due to the reasons that their lands were covered by mines/army operation. the joint inspection revealed that the land belonging to the appellant-writ petitioner was brought under cultivation for subsequent crops and, therefore, the second instalment of exgratia along with interest was not admissible to him. a similar stand has been taken in para nos. 6 to 10. even otherwise, the 3 affidavit of tehsildar akhnoor dated 02.03.2013 has been filed, as was directed vide order dated 13.02.2013. after going through the record the tehsildar has stated that the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for grant of instalment is not tenable. even photo copy of aasamiwise calculation sheet duly signed by capt. unit compensation officer has been enclosed showing that the due compensation was paid (r-1 & r-2).6. as a sequel to the above discussion, we are left with no option but to conclude that the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for payment of the instalment is not made out and the view taken by the learned single judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warring admission of the appeal.7. accordingly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (mansoor ahamd mir) (m. m. kumar) judge chief justice jaamu:05. 03.2013 anil raina, secy. 
Judgment:

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. LPAOW No. 2 OF 201.Bodh Raj Khajuria Petitioners Union of India & ors Respondent !Mr. C. M. Koul, Advocate ^Mr. K. K. Pangotra, ASGI. Mr. H. A. Siddiqui, AAG Honble Mr. Justice M. M. Kumar, Chief Justice Honble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge Date:

05. 03.2013 :JUDGMENT

: M. M. Kumar, CJ 1 The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The appellant-writ petitioner has claimed before the learned Single Judge that his crop was damaged by the Indian Army movement on Indo Pak Border during its operation Prakarm. The union of India-respondent had floated a scheme, sanctioning payment of compensation/ex-gratia to such farmers. The appellant-writ petitioner had received first and third instalments and had laid claim for payment of the second instalment which was allegedly withheld without any justification”

3. The union of India-respondents took the stand that the appellant-writ petitioner was not rendered disabled by the operation Prakarm to cultivate his land because there were no mines spread in his land obstructing the cultivation. On the ground that the aforesaid stand taken by Union of Indiarespondents was not controverted by placing any material on record, the learned Single Judge non-suited the appellant-writ petitioner for issuance of directions to pay him the second instalment.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable and would not call for any interference by this Court.

5. A perusal of para 3 of the objections filed by the Union of India-respondents to the writ petition would show that the second instalment was sanctioned only to such farmers who could not cultivate the subsequent crops due to the reasons that their lands were covered by mines/army operation. The joint inspection revealed that the land belonging to the appellant-writ petitioner was brought under cultivation for subsequent crops and, therefore, the second instalment of exgratia along with interest was not admissible to him. A similar stand has been taken in para nos. 6 to 10. Even otherwise, the 3 affidavit of Tehsildar Akhnoor dated 02.03.2013 has been filed, as was directed vide order dated 13.02.2013. After going through the record the Tehsildar has stated that the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for grant of instalment is not tenable. Even photo copy of Aasamiwise calculation sheet duly signed by Capt. Unit Compensation Officer has been enclosed showing that the due compensation was paid (R-1 & R-2).

6. As a sequel to the above discussion, we are left with no option but to conclude that the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for payment of the instalment is not made out and the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warring admission of the appeal.

7. Accordingly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (Mansoor Ahamd Mir) (M. M. Kumar) Judge Chief Justice JAAMU:

05. 03.2013 Anil Raina, Secy.