2008 Supreme(J&K) 256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Habibullah Sheikh & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
OWP No. 236/2008, OWP No. 891/2007
Decided On : 04 July, 2008
Advocate For Appellant: N.A. Kuchai
Advocate For Respondent: N.H. Shah
Advocate For Respondent: M.A. Beigh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that individuals without a legal right or interest in government-owned grazing land cannot challenge its acquisition for public purposes, and the compensation for acquired Kahcharai land is meant for the benefit of the community.
Headnote:
Kahcharai Land - Encroachment for Grid Station - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the encroachment of Kahcharai land for the construction of a Grid Station, emphasizing that the petitioners had no individual right or interest in the government-owned grazing land. The court also highlighted that the compensation for acquired Kahcharai land is payable to the concerned Panchayat and is meant for the benefit of the community.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the encroachment of Kahcharai land for the construction of a Grid Station, claiming that a portion of the land was encroached by some inhabitants in league with revenue field staff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had no individual right or interest in the Kahcharai land, and the writ petitions suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties. It emphasized that the land was reserved for grazing purposes and was virtually a property of the government, meant for the welfare of the community.
Issues: Non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of individual right or interest of the petitioners in the Kahcharai land, and the purpose of the land acquisition for public benefit were the key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that compensation for acquired Kahcharai land is payable to the concerned Panchayat and is meant for the benefit of the community. It also emphasized that individuals in illegal possession of grazing land cannot seek equitable relief.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the encroachment of Kahcharai land for the construction of a Grid Station, along with all connected CMPs, and vacated any interim direction.
2. It is averred in these petitions that Kahcharai land measuring 204 kanals and 3 marlas falling under survey N.261, 94 kanals 12 marlas tailing under survey No.262 and land measuring 187 kanals falling under survey No. 263 situated at village Nowbugh is reserved for grazing purposes. It is further averred that a portion of it came to be encroached by some inhabitants in league with revenue field staff and a representation came to be made to the revenue officials but without any fruit.
3. Respondents-Electric Department filed reply in both the writ petitions. It is profitable to reproduce para-2 of the reply filed in OWP No.891/2007 herein:
"2. In reply to paras 3 to 7, it is submitted that the petition is not maintainable in the present form, the petitioners have no right to file this writ petition on behalf of the whole population/ zamindaras of village Nowbug Chadoora District Budgam, It is submitted that the proposed construction of the Grid Station has been initiated not only on the demand of villagers of village Nowbug but also as per requirement/ necessity of the same for providing proper and uninterrupted power supply to numbers of villages of Tehsil Chadoora and District Budgam respectively. It was in the year 2005 that the Government through Deputy Commissioner Budgam was requested to make available land for construction of the Grid Station. The revenue authorities identified the land in village Nowbug and accordingly proceedings under land acquisition for land measuring 45 kanals coming under khasra No.263 was initiated, and finally it was in the year 2006, vide order No. DCB Land Acquisition/674/2542-44 dated 4.12.2006 the Assistant Commissioner Revenue Budgam directed the Tehsildar Chadoora to handover the possession of the land (45 kanals) to the answering respondents herein, and as such, the possession over the same of the respondents herein is legal. The petitioners have no right to challenge the possession of the answering respondents herein over the same nor they have any legal right to seek any relief from this Honble Court regarding the construction of the Grid Station. It is submitted that the land in question is already in possession of the answering respondents herein. The raising of the wall around the said piece of land is in progress and near about 35% of the work has been completed. The Government has already allotted the funds for the construction of the Grid station on spot and same is to be completed during this summer season in order to avoid complicacy and hardships of the people in the next winter. The relevant documents which shows that the authorities have completed all the legal formalities before handing over of the possession of land to the answering respondents herein. The contention of the petitions to the extent that the answering respondents are raising construction on spot without any competence or legal right is therefore without any force. The writ petition is as such liable to be dismissed."
4. Admittedly, the land in question is a Kacharai land-- reserved for grazing purposes. The petitioners have no individual right or interest in the said land. Neither the writ petitions have filed the writ petitions in representative capacity nor permission was sought for filing the writ petitions.
5. It is also not mentioned in the writ petitions who are the persons who have encroached or encroaching upon the `Kahcharai land. Thus, both the writ petitions suffer from non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioners have no right or interest over the said land. It is virtually a property of the government but meant for grazing purposes. If Kahcharai land is to be acquired for any public purpose the amount is to be spent for welfare of the community.
6. Division Bench of this court in case titled Ghulam Mohammad Bhat & Ors. Vs State and Anr., rep