Daily Times

The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu Kashmir (AJK) has ordered the state-run Mangla Dam Housing Authority (MDHA) Mirpur to refrain from making allotments in sites reserved for public use in the housing sectors in its control in the district.

The learned apex court [Appellate Jurisdiction], comprising Chief Justice Raja Saeed Akram Khan, issued these orders in a Civil PLA No.331 of 2023, Civil Misc. No. 139 of 2023 (Against the judgment of the High Court dated 08.06.2023 in writ petition No. 157 of 2016) titled Muhammad Sadiq Petitioner(s) v/s Ajaib Hussain Respondent(s). “The official respondents are directed to strictly follow the directions issued by this Court in Muhammad Azeem Dutt vs. Raja Khadim Hussain & others [2017 SCR 577] as well as section 15 of the Mangla Dam Housing Authority Act, 2009”, the AJK SC ordered.

According to details, the Supreme Court of AJK issued the orders over the appeal on the above writ petition against the judgment of the High Court dated 08.06.2023 in writ petition No. 157 of 2016, filed about the allotment of Plot No. 323A, measuring 5 marla, situated at Sector B, New Mirpur City to the petitioner being affectee of Mangla Dam Raising Project, Mirpur, vide allotment order issued on 20.12.2014.

The apex court, comprising Chief Justice Raja Saeed Akram Khan, said in its order that as per the directions of this Court in a number of cases, open space or the land reserved for public purposes cannot be allotted.

Furthermore, as per section 15 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Mangla Dam Housing Authority Act, 2009 public parks, playing grounds, graveyards, or incidental open spaces or any part of such parks, grounds, yards or spaces shall not be allowed to be allotted to any public or private sector entity or not to be converted to any other category of plots.

The apex court ordered in its judgment as under: “Plot No. 323A, measuring 5 marlas, situated at Sector B, New Mirpur City to the petitioner being affectee of Mangla Dam Raising Project, Mirpur, vide allotment order issued on 20.12.2014.

Respondent No. 1 had filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming therein that plot No.323 was allotted to him on 02.01.2020 and as per the site plan there is an open place in front of his plot to approach the main road from the front side, however, the official respondents have illegally allotted the said land to the petitioner, herein. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court accepted the writ petition in the following manner:-“The sum and substance of the above discussion are, the instant writ petition is hereby accepted, the allotment of plot No. 323-A, in favor of private respondent vide allotment order dated 20.12.2014, is hereby rescinded, however, as the private respondent is Mangla Dam affectee, therefore, respondents are duty bound to adjust his plot at some other suitable place. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case at some length. His main stance is that the writ petition before the High Court was not competent in the presence of alternate remedy, however, a perusal of the record would show that plot No.323-A is open space and as per the directions of this Court in a number of cases an open space or the land reserved for public purposes cannot be allotted.

Furthermore, as per section 15 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Mangla Dam Housing Authority Act, 2009 public parks, playing grounds, graveyards, or incidental open spaces or any part of such parks, grounds, yards or spaces shall not be allowed to be allotted to any public or private sector entity or not to be converted to any other category of plots.

The official respondents are directed to strictly follow the directions issued by this Court in Muhammad Azeem Dutt vs. Raja Khadim Hussain & others [2017 SCR 577] as well as section 15 of the Mangla Dam Housing Authority Act, 2009

In view of the above, this petition for leave to appeal is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents not to allot the disputed plot to anybody. However, as the petitioner is an affectee of the Mangla Dam Project, hence, the direction issued by the High Court for adjusting the plot of the petitioner at some other suitable place is endorsed.

If the petitioner approaches the concerned authority in the light of the judgment of the High Court, his application shall be decided within a period of two months while submitting a compliance report before this Court”.

Taimoor Ali Khan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Whereas Muhammad Jamil Chaudhary, Advocate, represented the respondent in the apex court.