Prem Lata And Ors. vs. Jda And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the impugned notices dated March 31, 2000, and May 24, 2006, were cryptic, vague, and illegal, and therefore, quashed them. The Court found that while the respondents are entitled to recover use and occupation charges for the contumacious use of public property, their action and the method adopted were callous, careless, and apathetic. Specifically, the assessment by the Superintending Engineer was for land measuring 7.74 kanals, exceeding the disputed land of 4.5 kanals, indicating a non-application of mind. The Court also noted that the petitioner was not associated with the assessment process, despite repeated requests. The Court directed the respondents to appoint an officer of appropriate rank to assess the market rate of use and occupation charges for the 4.5 kanals of land afresh, strictly in compliance with the Division Bench's direction, by associating the petitioner with the assessment process. This entire process is to be completed within six months. The Court found the delay in filing the petition to be condonable, given the illegality of the notices.

Facts

The petitioner's predecessor-in-interest was allotted land in 1986 and constructed "Kranti Hotel". A writ petition claiming allotment of adjoining land was dismissed in 1998, and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed on October 1, 1999. The Division Bench directed the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) to appoint an officer to assess use and occupation charges for the contumaciously occupied 4.5 kanals of land, to be recovered as costs. The petitioner's review petition against this order was dismissed on April 4, 2006. Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice dated March 31, 2000, demanding Rs. 95.50 lacs as use and occupation charges, and another notice dated May 24, 2006, demanding Rs. 95.00 lacs as rent for "Kranti Hotel". The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging these notices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Division Bench judgment is subject to the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988, and whether the respondents were required to follow its provisions, including natural justice, in assessing damages for unauthorized occupation? 2. Whether the impugned notices, not passed under the Public Premises Act, deprived the petitioner of the statutory right to appeal to the District Judge under Section 12 of the Act? 3. Whether the recovery of assessed amounts as costs by the Tehsildar (Recovery) was permissible, given the Division Bench's direction to recover them "as if those were costs in the appeal"? 4. Whether the assessment of use and occupation charges was arbitrary and unconscionable, given the petitioner's repeated requests for details of the assessment process and the alleged rental of a portion of the land for Rs. 100/- per month since 1983? 5. Whether the impugned notices were without jurisdiction, considering the petitioner's claim that the land in question is State land and was never transferred to the JDA, as supported by the erstwhile State's stand in a civil suit? Petitioner's arguments: The Division Bench judgment must be followed in accordance with the Public Premises Act. The notices were not issued under the Act, depriving the right to appeal. Costs can only be determined by the court, not a Tehsildar. The assessment was made without furnishing details and was penal. The notices are without jurisdiction as the land belongs to the State. Respondents' arguments: The writ petition is an attempt to defeat the Division Bench judgment. Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The assessment was made by an officer of appropriate rank as directed.