IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJAY DHAR, J.
Sudhir Kumar and Others - Appellants
Versus
Union Territory of J&K and Others - Respondents
WP(C) No. 832 of 2022
Decided On : 04-04-2024
Land Acquisition - Ownership Dispute - J&K Land Acquisition Rules - Compensation - Fundamental Right to Property
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the acquisition of their land, which they claimed was occupied by the respondents without following the prescribed procedure and without compensation. The respondents disputed the ownership and claimed possession of the land for public purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were the rightful owners of the land and were entitled to compensation for its occupation by the respondents. The court held that the delay in approaching the court did not disentitle the petitioners from claiming their right to the land.
Issues: Ownership dispute, compensation for land occupation, delay in approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the J&K Land Acquisition Rules and the fundamental right to property, emphasizing that the State cannot divest citizens of their land without following due process.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to initiate the process of land acquisition and payment of compensation to the petitioners within six months. If the respondents did not intend to retain the land, they were to return it to the petitioners and pay rental compensation.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners have sought a direction upon the respondents to acquire the land, which according to the petitioners, is owned by them, but has been taken over and utilised by the respondents without following the procedure prescribed under law and to pay compensation to them. An alternative prayer has been made by the petitioners that their land taken over by the respondents be returned to them.
2. As per case of the petitioners, land measuring 01 kanal 05 marlas and 03 kanals and 11 marlas in khasra No. 167/75 min situated at Qasba Bala, Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri is in occupation of Jal Shakti Vibagh, PHE Division, Nowsherea. Similarly, land measuring 2 marlas in khasra No. 76 in the same village is also is in occupation of Jal Shakti Vibagh, PHE Vibhag, Division, Nowshera. It has been further submitted that the land measuring 4 kanals in khasra No. 167/74 min situated in the same village is in the occupation of JPCDL (PDD) Division Nowshera. It has been further submitted that land measuring 5 marlas in the aforesaid khasra number is also in occupation of the Municipal Committee, Nowshera and public bathrooms have been constructed on the said land in the year, 2021.
3. According to the petitioners, the aforementioned land is duly reflected under the ownership of the petitioners in the revenue record and is shown in the occupation of the respondents. It has been further submitted that the land in question is in occupation of the respondents since the year 1963 regularly and continuously and the same has been taken over by the respondents forcibly and illegally without adopting due course of law and without paying any compensation to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they have become owners of the aforesaid land(s) upon demise of their predecessor-in-interest, Sh. Maalik Ram and in this regard mutation of inheritance stands attested in favour of the petitioners on 02.07.2013. The petitioners contend that they had approached the respondents a number of times for vacation of the land in question and in the alternative for payment of compensation but without any success. Hence the present writ petition.
4. Replies on behalf of respondent No. 7-Executive Engineer PWD, R&B Division Nowshera and respondent No. 6 Executive Engineer, Electric Division, Rajouri as also on behalf of Deputy Commissioner Rajouri stand filed.
5. According to reply by PDD/JPDCL, the land in question belongs to the said department and that the department is in its possession from the year, 1962. It has been submitted that they have constructed the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Nowshera, which is operational over there. It has been further submitted that as per khasra girdhawari, 4 kanals of land in khasra No. 167/75 is reflected in the name of Electric Department and it is also recorded that the land has been purchased by the Department. According to the respondent-Electric Department, the entries in the revenue record in favour of the petitioners are fraudulent in nature.
6. Respondent-Executive Engineer, PWD Division, Nowshera has claimed in his reply that if any land is coming under the alignment of the road passing through the town, the same is borne on the Border Roads Organization Gazette and and with the Public Works Department and that any other property in the Nowshera town shown as property of Public Works Department is under the possession of Municipal Committee, Nowshera.
7. The Deputy Commissioner, in his reply to the writ petition, has submitted that the land measuring 04 kanals in khasra No. 167/75 has been entered in the revenue record of khasra girdhawari of 1962 as ‘bhabaza kharid kiya jana’ which means that it is in the possession of the PDD due to purchase of land. It has been further submitted that the land measuring 6 marlas in khasra No. 74 is recorded in possession of Public Works Department since the year 1959, whereas land measuring 3 kanals 11 marlas in khasra No. 167/75 is re
The fundamental right to property cannot be disregarded, and citizens cannot be divested of their land without due process, even if there is a delay in approaching the court.
The determination of land occupation and compensation is within the jurisdiction of the civil court.
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. ....
Acquisition of Land - Grant of compensation - Predecessors-in-interest continued to be in cultivating possession of the subject land as occupancy tenants and this position is clearly reflected in the....
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 judgment emphasizes the principle of the rule of law and the constitutional right against deprivation of property without due process, as enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution.
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.