Shakti Devi v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
being heard, therefore, the petition is disposed of at the initial stage with the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 0606. The petition is disposed of as such. (SANJAY PARIHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 19.06.2025 Shammi
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 19.06.2025
By this petition recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner are called in question in terms whereof the respondent No.2 appears to have directed on 31.12.2024, that since predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner (Baldev Raj) was only entitled to 33% of the financial assistance under PM Package for the West Pakistan Refugees of 1947 but has got 100% share. Therefore had directed Tehsildar Recovery, Jammu to proceed for recovery of 67% of the excess received by him and distribute the same to the rightful claimants. It is submitted that said Baldev Raj has already expired but the Tehsildar Recovery (respondent No.3) has initiated the recovery proceedings against the petitioner without even ascertain whether the said compensation has fallen to the petitioner or not. That the respondents have initiated proceedings against a dead person because Baldev Raj has expired on
29.11.2023 whereas the recovery proceedings have been initiated on
08.05.2025. 2 WP(C) No.1571/2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ex-gratia relief was given on family basis and that petitioner is one of the daughter of deceased-Baldev Raj and the recovery proceedings have been initiated without conducting any inquiry nor the petitioner has been heard at any time. That the deceased-Baldev Raj had applied for grant of compensation to the extent of his share and sworn affidavit that his sisters would be separately laying claim for financial assistance but the respondents without providing an opportunity of being heard have proceeded to initiate the recovery proceedings. He further submits that the whole proceedings on the very face of it are bad in the eyes of law.
Given the material available with the petition, the counsel for the petitioner is rightly contending that the official respondents have proceeded to address the grievance of respondent No.4-Leelo Devi for grant of financial assistance without ascertaining whether the financial assistance was ever received by the petitioner when it is admitted case that the financial assistance given to the family of Sangaru Ram, comprised of Baldev Raj and his sisters one of them being the present respondent No.4, whereas the petitioner is one of his daughter, who is stated to have not received any compensation. Under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act proceedings have been initiated against petitioner without putting her to any prior notice, thus has been denied an opportunity of being heard. That too she is being asked to part with 67% of excess amount received by her father, who had already died on 29.11.2023 whereas the order has been passed on 31.12.2024. 3 WP(C) No.1571/2025
The record annexed with the petition would disclose that deceased- Baldev Raj himself had sworn an affidavit before the respondents that ex- gratia financial assistance required to be made available to displaced families in terms of Prime Minister Package of 2018 to that he seeks claim of his own share and that his sisters may not agree to get the claim of financial assistance with him as the agree to submit their claims separately. In that very affidavit, he further claims that the two sisters i.e. Lello Devi and Sheelo Devi make lay separate claim for the financial assistance. Which goes on to show that there were three claimants for the PM financial assistance and all three i.e. Baldev Raj and his two sisters were entitled to 33% being the successors of Sangaru Ram. However, it is given to understand from the order dated 31.12.2024 that Baldev Raj has received whole of financial assistance to the detriment of his two sisters. The respondents 2 & 3 without enquiry as to how come the whole of the amount has been paid to Baldev Raj when he was only claiming share to the extent of 1/3rd have proceeded to close the matter by addressing grievances of respondent No.4 without conducting enquiry during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner.
Operative part
In that background, the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of being heard, therefore, the petition is disposed of at the initial stage with the direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to conduct an enquiry as to how come deceased Baldev Raj has received 100% of the compensation provided to the family of Sangaru Ram and also in the event of whole share having been taken by Baldev Raj whether same was succeeded to by both or either of his daughters and then proceed to address the grievance of Smt. Leelo Devi for 4 WP(C) No.1571/2025 grant of share of financial assistance. Until then the recovery proceedings initiated against petitioner are directed to be kept in abeyance. The needful be got done within a period of three months, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to all three legal heirs of deceased-Baldev Raj as well as to respondent No.4 and other successors of Sangaru Ram as the case may be.
The petition is disposed of as such. (SANJAY PARIHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 19.06.2025 Shammi
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: being heard, therefore, the petition is disposed of at the initial stage with the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Revenue Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.