Mazhar Ali Shah, J.
1. Despite call nobody appears on behalf of even respondent No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have already been set ex parte by order ot' this Court dated 9-6-1980. Neither any objections nor any counter has been filed by respondent No. I.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits of the petition.
3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No. 1, vide No. Rev (NDJ) 74/123 dated Aug. 6. 1976 passed vide Government Order No. Rev(NDJ) 228 of 1976 on 12-7-1976 annexed as annexure (B) to the present petition. The petitioner acquired the land in dispute by Government Order No. D, 3644 dated Aug. 3. 1934 by order of the then Revenue Minister under a lease measuring 16 marlas and 4 sirsai situated at Talab Rani Sahiba Jammu, which was initially granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner Shri Ram Labhya on an annual ground rent of Rs. 5/- and annas two for a period of 40 years. The true copy of the document of lease is annexed herewith as annexure (A) with the petition.
4. This is also contended by the petitioner that her husband Shri Ram Labhya got a house constructed for residential purposes over the land in dispute and incurred huge expenses over the said land. The said residential house is still standing on the land in dispute. This house was rented out by the petitioner's husband to one Lala Kans Raj for residential purposes. In 1972 the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 the legal heirs of Shri Ram Labhaya made an application to the Assistant Commissioner Nazool. Jammu. for renewal of the above said lease, but the said application remained undisposed of without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The respondent vide order dated July 12, 1976 annexure (B) instead of renewing the lease ordered for the resumption of land in dispute. The order is also attacked as an outcome of collusion of Lala Kans Raj, the tentant of the petitioner with the Nazool Department in order to get the said land and the house allotted in his favour through the back door entry. The order impugned is therefore against the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Grants Act I960 and particularly Clause (m) of Rule 7 of the Rules framed thereunder as no steps are taken to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the buildings and other structures standing thereon which ought to have been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Rules nor there existed any ground to refuse the renewal of the lease granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order annexure B as well as the Jammu and Kashmir Land Grants Rules 1960 framed under Section 9 of the J & K Land Grants Act 1960. I find that the order passed by respondent No. 1 vide Annexure (B) is neither a speaking order nor is in accordance with the provisions of the rules mentioned above and this is violative of the provisions of the Constitution with respect to the right to property and thus liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari under Section 103 of the Constitution of J. & K. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is condemning unheard and specially when the right to property is attacked, the State Government is not empowered to deprive a citizen of his property without due process of law and payment of compensation as provided under Rule 7 of Sub-clause (m) of the above said rules. The impugned order annexure (b) apart from being violative of the provisions of the Constitution is also arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice,
6. Thus for the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The order passed by respondent No. 1 vide annexure (b) is hereby quashed by a writ of certiorari and it is held that respondent No. 1 is not entitled to resume the land in dispute under the impugned order. Under the circumstances as enunciated above and the manner in which the impugned order is passed the respondent No. 1 is also liable to be saddled with costs. The petitioner shall be entitled to the cost of the petition as well as the counsel's fee which is fixed at Rs. 250 Accordingly the petition stands disposed of and also the connected C. M. P