Back
2011 Supreme(J&K) 285
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
J.P.Singh, J.
Zamindaran of Village Chak Balotrian & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State of J&K & Ors. -Resopndent
OWP No. 462/2002 & CMP No. 262/2008
Decided On : 31-05-2011
Mr.Jagjit Rai, Advocate for the Petitioner., Mr.A.H.Qazi, AAG for R-l & 6., Mr.Jatinder Choudhary, CGSC for R-7.
The rejection of a claim for compensation based on voluntary donation and limitation must be warranted by applicable laws, and the state has an obligation to protect the fundamental rights of its masses.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Rule 24-A - State Land Acquisition Act - [Village Chak Balotrian] - [Rule 24-A of the Rules] - [Summary: The court allowed the petitioners' claim for compensation for their land, rejecting the state's argument that the land was voluntarily donated. The court found that Rule 24-A did not apply to the case and that the rejection of the claim based on limitation was unwarranted and illegal.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought compensation for their land taken by the state for road construction in 1952-53. The claim was rejected based on the grounds of voluntary donation and limitation. The court directed a re-examination of the claim, and the Deputy Commissioner concluded that the land was not donated and the rejection of the claim was unwarranted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the claim based on voluntary donation and limitation was unwarranted and illegal, and allowed the petitioners' claim for compensation.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the rejection of the claim based on voluntary donation and limitation, and the entitlement of the land owners to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 24-A did not apply to the case, and that the rejection of the claim based on limitation was unwarranted and illegal. The court also emphasized the obligation of the state to protect the rights of its masses and the right of aggrieved persons to seek enforcement of their fundamental rights.
Final Decision: The petitioners' claim for compensation was allowed, and the state was directed to pay compensation to the land owners within a specified period.
2. The petitioners' Claim to compensation was rejected on the grounds that their predecessors-in-interest had voluntarily donated the land and in view of the provisions of Rule 24-A of the Rules framed under the State Land Acquisition Act, the land owners were not entitled to compensation.
3. Aggrieved by the rejection of their Claim by the Executive Engineer PWD (R & B) Construction Division, Jammu, the petitioners have approached this Court again seeking compensation for their land.
4. During the course of consideration of the Petition, learned Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents stated that the State-respondents may not be averse to Deputy Commissioner's re-examining the petitioners' grievance for recording a finding on facts, after hearing the parties, as to whether the villagers had donated the land to the respondents for construction of the road or it was otherwise taken possession of by the respondents.
5. Keeping in view the fact that no records were available with the respondents indicating that the villagers had donated the land and the fair statement of the learned Advocate General conveying respondents' willingness to get the petitioners' Claim re-examined, this Court, vide its order of March 10,2010, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Samba to hold enquiry as to whether the land owners of Village Chak Balotrian had donated their land or it had been otherwise taken possession of by the State-respondents for construction of the road.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Samba, accordingly, filed his Report which was, however, found to have been made without hearing the State-respondents. He was, therefore, directed to re-examine the matter and furnish his report after providing opportunity of hearing to the respondents as well.
7. The Deputy Commissioner, heard the respondents and thereafter submitted his fresh Report taking into consideration the State-respondents' views and the material, which was placed before him by the Collector, Land Acquisition, PWD (R & B), Jammu, Executive Engineer Construction Division No. 1, Jammu, the Tehsildar, Samba's Report, besides the views offered by OC, 69 RCC C/o 56 APO.
8. The Deputy Commissioner, concluded his Report saying as follows:-
" After hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents and going through the records produced related to the issue, the findings in the matter are as under:-
1. The road was constructed in 1952 by the PWD(R & B). The land of petitioners has been used for construction of road for which no compensation has been paid to them.
2. The petitioners ought to have preferred the claim at the time of construction of road which had not been done till 1998. The petitioners filed the Writ Petition in 1998 for claiming compensation after a lapse of 46 years. Although, petitioners have stated that they have time and again requested for compensation, nevertheless no documentary evidence of preferring such a claim has been found in record nor produced by the petitioners.
In view of the aforementioned facts, U/S has come to the conclusion that land in question has not been donated by the petitioners or their predecessors in interest. The road has been constructed in the year 1952-53 and it exists as on date. However, the PWD(R & B) has been shown in possession since 1968 as per revenue records. Hence, this report is submitted in terms of Order of Hon'ble High Court passed on 15.09.2010."
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submis
