Point of Law: Where the deprivation of property without sanction of law is admitted and clearly established, there is no difficulty in applying above principle and, as such, a petition for compensation cannot be dismissed on ground of delay and laches.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. The petitioners allege that they are all successors of Mahia Dhobi, who was the owner in possession of the land measuring 34 kanals and 17 marlas of Khasra No. 581 (1 Marla), Khasra No. 585 (3 kanals 1 marla), Khasra No. 586 (1 marla), Khasra No. 587 (2 kanals 5 marlas, Khasra No. 588 (3 kanal 4 marlas), Khasra No. 589 (24 kanals 19 marlas) and Khasra No. 590 (1 kanal 6 marlas) situated in village Digiana Tehsil and District Jammu.

2. They have filed the petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide them with suitable alternative land measuring 31 kanals and 10 marlas in the same village in lieu of their equivalent land of Khasra Nos. 581 and 585 to 590 of the village which is alleged to be in occupation of the State Authorities and for a direction to deliver possession of 3 kanals and 7 marlas of land of Khasra No. 589 min which is said to be still lying vacant. In the alternative, the petitioners have prayed for the compensation of the aforesaid land and for rental value of its unauthorized use and occupation from 1965-66 till it is actually acquired and compensation is paid.

3. The writ petition has been filed on the allegation that the aforesaid land belonging to their predecessor-in-interest was never acquired and they were not paid any compensation though its possession was illegally taken over in the year 1965-66.

4. The petition is in respect of the alleged illegal occupation of the land without acquisition in the year 1965-66, but has been filed in the year 2014 and, as such, apparently suffers from gross delay and laches. Thus, an objection has been raised regarding its maintainability at this juncture.

5. The petitioners contend that they were under the impression that their land might have been acquired and compensation may have been paid to their predecessor-in-interest, one Aziz Din but on inquiry, it was revealed that due to some mistake, the possession of the land was handed over by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 without acquisition. On receiving such information, the petitioners started making further inquiries sometime in the year 2011-12 whereupon the correct facts were revealed.

6. It is also alleged that the petitioners are still shown to be owners of the said land in the Revenue record but the respondents are retaining possession of the same without paying any compensation.

7. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jammu has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 alleging that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as sought by them. They have no cause of action to initiate any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition suffers from gross delay and laches. The petitioners have slept over their rights, if any, for over fifty years.

8. On merits, it has been alleged that in the year 1960, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir acquired a total of 137 kanals of land for two Industrial Estates, i.e., Sant Nagar, Barzulla District Budgam and Industrial Estate, Digiana, Jammu. On acquisition of the said land, a pacca boundary wall was constructed immediately thereafter. The acquisition of the said land appears to have been on the basis of the agreement deeds executed in the year 1961. They have no knowledge about the earlier ownership of the land as the record relating to it is not traceable in the Revenue Department. The record relating to the acquisition is also not traceable in the office of the District Industries Centre as it appears to have been destroyed in the floods of 1988 when most of the record of the District Industries Centre was lost. The land in question was put in possession of the answering respondents in the year 1960 and has been in their possession since then.

9. No response to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, i.e., the District Administrative Authorities. However, Sh. S.S.Nanda, Senior AAG representing the Deputy Com