2017 Supreme(J&K) 777
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
TASHI RABSTAN, J.
Mohammad Ibrahim and others - Petitioners
Vs.
State of J&K and others - Respondents
OWP No. 503 of 2017, MP No. 01 of 2017 c/w Contempt No. 445 of 2017
Decided On : 19-08-2017
For the Petitioners:Mr. M.A. Qayoom, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. M.A. Beigh, AAG, Mr. M.A. Rathore, AAG, Mr. Sajad Ashraf Wani, Advocate.
Compulsory acquisition of land for a public purpose on payment of compensation is a recognized mode under law, and individual rights must yield to public interest in cases of land acquisition for public purpose.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Public Interest - J&K Land Acquisition Act - Compensation - Public Purpose
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed that land was allotted to them for distribution among the people, but despite approvals and orders, no distribution was made. The land was later transferred for construction of a Grid Station, leading to objections and legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land acquisition for the construction of the Grid Station was for a public purpose and in the larger public interest. It emphasized the principle that individual rights must yield to public interest in cases of compulsory acquisition for public purpose.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the acquisition of land for the construction of the Grid Station, objections raised by the petitioners, and the payment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition of land for a public purpose is a mode recognized under law, and the inconvenience to a smaller number of people must be accepted for the larger public interest. It emphasized the need to balance the competing interests and the duty of citizens to comply with the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to make payment of compensation to the petitioners for the acquired land according to the prevailing market rate or the rates agreed upon during negotiation, within four weeks.
1. The case set up by petitioners is that an irrigation canal was constructed by Public Works Department, for irrigation of Kharbuthang Command area which was commissioned somewhere in the year 1985 and after negotiation/decisions taken with the local army for vacation of some portion of land from any occupation, they total command area was identified for distribution among the people. A committee under the chairmanship of the then Ladakh Affairs Minister, including District Development Commissioner, Kargil, Superintending Engineer, PWD Kargil and other is said to have been constituted for recommending a proposal for distribution of command area. The committee in its meeting held on 19th October 2015, according to petitioners, is averred to have recommended allotment of land in favour of people of 11 villages having grazing right over the land and the proposal of the committee is stated to have approved by the Chief Minister and accordingly Government Order no.359-Rev (LB) of 1985 dated 24th October 1985 came to be issued. Despite approval by the Chief Minister and passing of Government Order no.359-Rev (LB) of 1985 dated 24th October 1985, no distribution of land is alleged to have been made by respondents. Thereafter letter dated 28th July 1987 was addressed by Deputy Commissioner, Kargil, to Secretary to Government Ladakh, Affairs Department, Srinagar, stating therein that as in the committee’s recommendations, no criteria was fixed against item a, b, c and d of serial no.2 of the Draft Order, but as per grazing rights of different villages, the committee fixed the criteria in respect of families residing in different villages, having grazing rights, as such, as per the availability of command area for distribution among families of different villages as per 1981 census, the area of land for distribution is proportionately reduced and the actual area for allotment as per criteria, should be the one as stated in the communication and as per the said criteria, land measuring 06 Kanals per Chula was decided to be allotted besides other villages to the villagers of Baroo. Tehsildar Kargil, in view of recommendation of the committee, is said to have after measurement of command area, submitted a detailed proposal on 3rd February 1988 for allotment of land to Deputy Commissioner, Kargil, in which besides other things he proposed that land measuring 1052 Kanals and 18 Marlas, at 06 Kanal 10 Marlas amongst 162 Chulas of Village Baroo/Partapganj should be allotted to them. In order to stop further encroachment by non-civilians, possession of land to each village as a whole as mentioned in column no.3 of letter dated 3rd February 1988, is averred to have been handed over in the year 1988 itself to the villagers but individual allotment orders were not issued and the people including those living in village Baroo/Baghi Khumini also divided the land amongst themselves at their own level, which turned barren land into a green land. In terms of the aforesaid division, the petitioners, it is contended, were also given the land and after division of the land, Order no.Rev (LB) 175 of 1993 dated 27.12.1993, specifying the rules for allotment of land in command area of Kargil District was issued.
2. Further case of the petitioners is that in the year 2003, Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council was constituted and in terms of its Section 42, all land was transferred to LAHDC Kargil and an SRO 182 dated 6th June 2003 was also issued, delegating the executive powers of allotment, occupation, efficient use and management of land to the Council, but the formal orders of allotment in favour of each individual were not issued. It is contended that after issuance of SRO 182 of 2003, Deputy Commissioner/CEO, LAHDC, Kargil, (respondent no.4 herein) vide order dated 19th June 2015, transferred the State land measuring 65 Kanals 19 marlas under Khasra/Plot no.4, 6 and 26, situated at Kharbuthang, Kargil, in favour of Executive Engineer, El