STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Taking a serious view on non-implementation of judgement in Gair Mumkin Khad case, a Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Tashi Rabstan directed Secretary PHE to appear in person along with the status report.
Advocate Aseem Sawhney appeared for the contempt whereas Deputy AGs Ehsan Mirza and Ranjeet Singh Jamwal appeared for the State. Adv Aseem Sawhney submitted before the Court that a PIL was filed by one Balbir Singh seeking inter-alia several reliefs seeking implementation of the J&K Water Resources (Regulation and Management) Act 2010 besides other prayers for reliefs further submitted that the petitioner herein- filed an application for intervention- CMA 183/2014 and was allowed to intervene. Besides this the petitioner had also filed an application CMA 187/2014 seeking modification of the interim order dated 10.7.2014.
The Bench quoted Apex Court verdict in the case Jagpal Singh vs State of Punjab, as well as by this Court in case, titled as, Dharm Chand vs State of J&K. Till the time such policy/scheme is framed by the State Government, order dated 10th July, 2014 and status-quo with respect to such lands/khads shall remain in force….”
Adv Sawhney submitted that Court had directed the respondents to frame a policy/ scheme for such wetlands, khads etc within two months from 12.2.2016 and till then the status quo was directed to be maintained.
Advocate Sawhney said two months lapsed in April 2016 but the respondents have not framed a policy or scheme, therefore compelled under these circumstances several aggrieved persons/ land owners (including petitioner) thus moved a Representation to the Minister with copies to most of the respondents apprising them of the situation and sought compliance of the Judgment.
He submitted in the petition that respondents have neither bothered to implement the Judgment of the High Court nor passed any directives or orders which would permit issuance of Fards and thus permit the petitioner or people aggrieved who are hundreds in number, to either sell, buy, transfer or construct over such lands; since there is a status quo passed by this Court and the act of the respondents in not framing a policy within the time frame as provided by the Court is contumacious and therefore the respondents have dared to challenge the majesty of the Court by disobeying and not obeying the direction of this Court, despite reminders in writing and personal visits of the people and other aggrieved land owners to the chambers of these respondents and even the ministers.
