IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Ghulam Ahmad Bhat & Others - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of J&K And Others - Respondent
OWP No.1441 of 2012
Decided On : 22-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners have sought a direction upon the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.14.00 lacs per kanal along with solatium of 15% and interest in respect of land measuring 02 kanals and 16 marlas under Survey No.338/34-min situated at Parimpora Srinagar.
2. According to the petitioners, they were owners in possession of the land in question and the same was taken over by the Irrigation & Flood Control Department of the Government for construction of Shalteng Irrigation Canal a long time back. It has been submitted that the respondents approached the petitioners for taking over the land in question and they assured the petitioners that in lieu thereof, they will be paid compensation. However, without paying any compensation to the petitioners, the respondents forcibly took over possession of the land in question in the year 1978-79. It has been further contended that the petitioners requested the respondents either to vacate the said land or in the alternative to pay compensation to them and in this regard a number of representations were filed by the petitioners with the respondents.
3. Ultimately, on 18.04.2008, respondent No.1 issued indent certifying therein that they have taken over the land in question of the petitioners for the purpose of construction of Shalteng Canal. Vide No.LAIF/585-92 dated 28.01.2010, respondent No.4 passed the tentative award whereby he recommended compensation @Rs.14,36,500/ per kanal with 15% solatium in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land measuring 02 kanals 05 marlas only. The total compensation recommended for the said land was Rs.37,16,943/.
4. The Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Srinagar, vide his letter No.DCS/LAC/875/343 dated 23.06.2010, approved the rates recommended by the Collector. On 04.10.2010, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sumbal Sonawari, addressed a communication to the Superintending Engineer, Hydraulic Circle, District Baramulla, recommending case of the petitioners for grant of compensation and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control Department, Kashmir, asked the Collector Land Acquisition to release Rs.14.00 lacs unspent balance money in favour of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, has, vide his letter No.DCS/LAC /1875/343 dated 23.06.2010, approved the tentative award and the Collector, Land Acquisition, vide his letter dated 19.04.2012, informed this position to the Executive Engineer concerned and he further asked him to submit the possession certificate.
5. It has been contended that the possession of the land in question has been taken over by the respondents in the year 1978-79 and they have constructed an Irrigation Canal on the said land but despite approval of award by the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, the compensation has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioners.
6. The respondents, in their reply to the writ petition, have submitted that with reference to the instant case, a Committee was constituted at Divisional level to examine the records pertaining to the subject land compensation case. The Committee has reported that on the basis of Fard Intikhab Jamabandi issued by Tehsildar, Srinagar, on 21.01.2012, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation for the land in question. The relevant portions of the report of the Committee have been reproduced in the reply and the same provides as under:
Indian Handicrafts Emporium and others vs. Union of India and others
Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose
K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P.
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.
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
Forcible dispossession of property without due process violates constitutional rights; delay and laches are not applicable in cases of continuing cause of action.
The State cannot dispossess individuals of property without proper legal processes, affirming the entitlement to compensation for land occupied without due course of law.
State's unauthorized occupation of private property without acquisition violates Article 300A; unsubstantiated donation claims rejected; delay and laches no bar to compensation for continuing wrong. ....
Welfare State cannot deprive property without due process and compensation under Article 300A; cannot plead adverse possession or delay against owners seeking payment for land used in public road con....
The State cannot plead adverse possession in respect of the land of its citizens under its unauthorized occupation, and delay and latches cannot be used to deny compensation to the citizens deprived ....
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.