The Collector's obligation to issue notices, the distinction between Section 18 and Section 31 references, and the protection of interests and rights of persons not listed in revenue records.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this common order, two writ petitions one filed by Nasreena Rashid Banday and another filed by Mohammad Akram Bhat and others are proposed to be disposed of.

2. WP(C) No.1542/2022 has been filed by petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday contending therein that she had purchased land measuring 03 kanals 10 marlas under Khasra No.3335/2603 situated in Mouza Awantipora Tral from respondent No.8-Javaid Ahmad Bhat by virtue of sale deed dated 28th of June, 2016, registered on 29th June 2016. It is claimed that the petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday became owner in possession of the land in question to the exclusion of erstwhile owner of the land. However, due to certain unavoidable circumstances, entry in the revenue record could not be made in respect of the land in question in favour of petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday.

3. It appears that the Collector, Land Acquisition, Pulwama, vide his notification dated 27th February, 2017, issued notification under Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for acquisition of land including the land covered under Survey No.3335/2603-min situated at Awantipora, Pulwama, for establishment of All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The Collector thereafter proceeded to issue notices under Section 5 and 6 of the Act and, accordingly, 463 kanals of land including the land purchased by petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday was acquired by the official respondents. It is claimed that no compensation was paid to petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday though possession of the land was taken over by the Collector.

4. It has been further submitted that petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday filed an application before the Collector seeking release of compensation for the land measuring 03 kanals and 10 marlas owned by her but no action was taken by the official respondents on the said application presumably on the ground that the name of petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday had not been incorporated in the revenue records pursuant to the sale deed. It has been contended that the entry in the revenue record is only fiscal in nature and once the petitioner became the owner of the land, she was entitled to compensation after the said land was acquired by the official respondents.

5. It has been further submitted that petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday had filed a civil suit against the respondents seeking compensation and damages but when she came to know that the award has been passed by the Collector, the suit was withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings and, accordingly, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the Collector to release the compensation in respect of the aforesaid land in favour of petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday.

6. Initially, only official respondents were impleaded as parties to the writ petition but later on, on the basis of an application made by the private respondent Nos. 5 to 8, they were impleaded as respondents and they contested the writ petition by filing a reply thereto.

7. WP(C) 2055/2022 has been filed by Mohammad Akram Bhat and others whereby they have sought a direction upon the Collector Land Acquisition, Awantipora, to refer the matter to District Judge, Pulwama, in terms of Section 18 read with Section 31 of the Act for determination of compensation and area of the acquired land of the petitioners for which compensation is payable to them under law. A further direction has been sought upon the Collector to deposit the undisbursed amount of compensation of Rs.69,58,873/in respect of the acquired land of the petitioners measuring 15 kanals and 13 marlas under Khasra Nos.3819/3345/2603 and 3671/335/2603 situated at Awantipora and Rs.7,52,412/on account of compensation in respect of trees/plants with the Court of Principal District Judge, Pulwama, along with statutory interest.

8. As per case of the petitioners Mohammad Akram Bhat and others, land measuring 15 kanals and 13 marlas under Khasr