JUDGMENT :

WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.

1. The petitioners, through the medium of the instant petition are seeking writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to evaluate, compute and disburse the compensation to the petitioners at the present market rate in respect of their land taken away by the respondents forcibly for which a road has already been constructed measuring 178 metres “PSC Motorable Bridge including approaches at Ujhan (Rajouri)” besides seeking a direction against the respondents to award interest to the petitioners on the amount due to be paid to them on account of their compensation from the date the amount of compensation fell due to be paid to the petitioners up to the date of actual disbursement.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Petition has been filed by the petitioners collectively, claiming to be owners and in possession of the land in village Ujhan, Tehsil Darhal, District Rajouri. The specific case of the petitioners is that for the construction of the road in Village Ujhan, Tehsil Darhal, the lands of the petitioners were required to be acquired, the details of which have been mentioned in the writ petition.

3. The further case of the petitioners is that the concerned Tehsildar has submitted the file pertaining to the lands in question for acquisition for the construction of 178 meters PSC Motorable Bridge including approaches at Ujhan. It is further submitted that thereafter the aforementioned road came to be constructed which remains in existence as on today and the same is also under use by the villagers and others who are required to move on the said road.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

4. Mr. C.M. Koul, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. A.R. Bhat, has submitted that the petitioners by no stretch of imagination could be deprived of their land without following due process of law and the specific case which has been projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant petition is that the respondents without following the due process of law in reference to Land Acquisition Act, have divested the petitioners of their land and the said road has been constructed. He further submits that the same was apparently done to the disadvantage and detriment of the petitioners as no compensation has been paid to them. The further case of the petitioners is that though the said land of the petitioners was utilised and the road has already been constructed which continues to remain in existence as on today, besides the same being under use of villagers and others without blacktopping.

5. The only grievance which has been projected by the petitioners is that the respondents have not paid any compensation to the petitioners and the land of the petitioners were forcibly taken away by the respondents without following due process of law. Learned counsel further submits that in absence of any proceedings initiated for acquiring the land in question under the Land Acquisition Act which was in vogue at that relevant point of time, the petitioners have been put to a disadvantageous position as their land has been taken forcibly and even the compensation has not been assessed and paid to the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners cannot be deprived of their land in the absence of conforming to the requirement of the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act as admittedly, the respondents have not taken any steps contemplated under the aforementioned Act. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners have been deprived of an opportunity of being heard, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the right granted to the petitioners in terms of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India has been glaringly transgressed by the respondents.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

7. The reply stands filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 by Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG in which a specific stand has been taken in Para B of the objections that as per spot positio