IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Kuldeep Raj and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of J&K and Others – Respondents
O.W.P. No. 644 of 2019, C.M. Nos. 3069, 8180 of 2019
Decided On : 11-02-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 - Section 4(1), 6, 7, 9 and 9-A - Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1973 - Section 21 and 24 - Notification - Land Acquisition and requisition - Land acquired for public purposes - Legal Heirs - Shares - Claiming compensation - Instant petition as propounded by petitioners is that they are village land holders/owners having their respective shares in Shamlat Deh land falling under Khasra - Said land is stated to have been inherited by petitioners from their ancestors as descendents of one, Mst. Parro having succeeded by one Banku, being in cultivating possession of the land since 1979-80 B.K. and after their death inherited by petitioners being as successors.
Finding of the Court:
The expression ‘inquire’ appearing in sub-section 4 suggests contemplating of the same by providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons in respect of whose entry correctness is sought or is warranted - The impugned order, therefore, issued by the respondent No. 2 directing deletion of entries qua the parcels of land possessed by petitioners being Shamilat Deh and handing over to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is not legally sustainable - Respondents have manifestly, proceeded and dealt with petitioners qua land in question having been possessed by them legally and validly as Shamilat Deh, illegally, unfairly, unreasonably and arbitrarily in process having patently infringed their legally recognized rights and interest with impunity which cannot be countenanced by law - By issuance of writ of mandamus, respondents are commanded to process payment of compensation to petitioners in accordance with law for their respective portion/parcels of land taken over from them while treating the same to have been acquired pursuant to notification issued under Section 4(1) of Act, 1990.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court in granting them the following reliefs:
(b) With further Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners being the village land holders/owners in “Shamlat Deh” falling under Khasra No. 635/605/580 measuring 900 Kanals situated at Village Sahar, Tehsil and District Kathua.
(c) With further Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 4 to complete the acquisition proceedings and settle the compensation as per the market rate in favour of the petitioners.”
2. The factual matrix of the instant petition as propounded by the petitioners is that they are village land holders/owners having their respective shares in Shamlat Deh land falling under Khasra No. 635/605/580 in Khewat No. 10, Khata No. 1/28 to 33 and Khata No. 1/34. The said land is stated to have been inherited by the petitioners from their ancestors as descendents of one, namely, Mst. Parro having succeeded by one Banku, being in cultivating possession of the land since 1979-80 B.K. and after their death inherited by the petitioners being as successors.
3. It is being stated by the petitioners that while being in cultivating possessions of the land in question, respondent No. 3 issued Notification No. 08 of 2008 dated 23.01.2018 under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (for brevity ‘the Act’) notifying the said land falling under Khasra No. 635/605/580 min measuring 900 Kanals for public purposes i.e. for establishment of Industrial Estates at Village Sahar. In terms of the said notice, objections are stated to have been invited from the interested persons. It is being stated that the aforesaid notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, was not properly circulated as envisaged under Section 4 of the Act and that the respondents submitted the case to the Government for issuance of notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act and that the respondent No. 1 issued Notification No. 342-Rev (LAJ) of 2018 dated 27.7.2018, for declaration of intended acquisition to the effect that the land is required for public purposes viz. for establishment of Industrial Estates by Industries and Commerce Department.
4. A Notice under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Act is stated to have been issued Vide No. DCK/ADCK/LA/2018-19/165-72 dated 28.08.2018, by the Collector to all interested persons i.e. land owners and also representatives of the intending department for stating nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests and their objections, if any, with regard to the measurement of land conducted by the field staff of the Revenue Department and the amount of the tentative compensation.
5. It is being next stated that consequent to the issuance of the notification under Section 9 and 9-A of the Act, the rates in respect of the land proposed to be acquired by the respondents were negotiated and shares determined, however, in-between respondent No. 2 issued Order No. DCK/LA/2018-19/1280-81 dated 14.02.2019, (for brevity ‘impugned order’) in terms whereof the land of the petitioners came to be declared as the State land, without hearing them. It is further stated that at the time of preparation of record of rights during the year 1979-80 B.K. 5293 Kanals of land were existing on spot including the land covered under Khasra No. 580, with an area of 3613 Kanal and 01 Marla of land, and in sup
Section 24 of the Act of 1976, provides for procedure for making record and sub-section 4 of Section 24 casts a duty upon the revenue officer to inquire into the correctness of all the entries in the....
Continuous possession alone does not establish ownership; the rights in land vested in State, and compensation is not a pre-condition for possession transfer.
The classification of lands as shamlat patti is upheld; civil courts lack jurisdiction over ownership disputes regarding shamlat deh lands under the Act.
The State cannot dispossess individuals of property without proper legal processes, affirming the entitlement to compensation for land occupied without due course of law.
The retrospective application of the Supreme Court's judgment in Jai Singh's case and the amendment to the 1961 Act in 2007, which inserted Section 5-B.
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and can be denied due to unreasonable delay in seeking relief.
The State must compensate landowners for land acquired for public use, as the right to property is a constitutional right that cannot be extinguished by delay or adverse possession.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.