Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K12
Khan, J. 1. The short point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: Whether Sections 5 and 14 of the State Limitation Act, are available in computing the period of limitation of an appeal under the Central Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, the Central Act)? 2. It arises in this way: Appellant is a licensee of a shop in Hotel Ashok, Jammu, belonging to respondent No. 1. His licence was to last for three years vide agreement dated 1-4-1983 expirable on 31-3-1986. On the expiry of his licence, eviction proceedings were initiated against him by the Estates Officer under the Central Act. He reacted by filing Writ Petition No. 957/86 in this court and obtained interior stay order against his eviction. This order was subsequently modified by a Division Bench of this Court providing as under: '...........Respondent (ITDC) shall be atliberty to take possession of the shop in question from the petitioner subject to the result of writ petition in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1995J& K64
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. The only question that falls for determination in this case is: Whether or not the Custodian, Evacuee Property, becomes functus officio on passing orders in an application under Section 8 of the Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act 1949 (hereinafter called the E.P. Act) and is rendered incompetent to pass any order of restoration of de-notified property to the claimant?2. The controversy centres round 36 kanals of land comprising Khasra Nos. 637 and 638/1 situate in village Maheen Sarkar, tehsil Samba. Petitioners claim to be in possession of this land and are resisting its restoration ordered by the Custodian in favour of respondents 2 and 3.3. The disputed land was notified as evacuee property on 3-10-1979 and soon thereafter respondents 2 and 3 preferred their claim before the Custodian, who, ordered it to be deleted from the evacuee register vide order dated 11-8-1980. He went a step further and directed its restoration to respondents 2 and 3 (claimants) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1996CriLJ974
ORDERAbdul Quadir Parray, J.1. Mr. Bazaz, counsel for the respondents was called upon way back on 29-7-1994 by this Court to show as to whether the order passed by the District Magistrate detaining the person of the detenue Ghulan Hassan Rather S/o Ali Mohammad Rather R/o Khoshipora, was duly approved by the Government as is required under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the J & K Public Safety Act. He was, granted two weeks time to apprise the Court about the same. But till date respondent/State has miserably failed to apprise the Court about this situation.2. It may not be out of place to mention here and to place on record that under Section 8 of the J & K Public Safety Act, the Government or the functionaries namely the District Magistrate/Divisional Commissioner can pass orders for detention of a person under the said Act. The Act has been enacted in pursuance of sub-Article (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The orders ...
Tag this Judgment!