IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Giaso Ram and ors. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 3286 of 2019
Decided On : 02-03-2024
Land Acquisition - Compensation - J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 - Schedule III of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 - Para (4) of Part-A of Schedule III - Government Order No. LB/7-C of 1958 - Circular No. Rev-LB-10/80 dated 23.02.1980
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought full compensation for their acquired land, claiming ownership rights under Government Order No. LB/7-C of 1958. Respondent No. 3 contended that only one-third compensation was payable based on Circular No. Rev-LB-10/80 dated 23.02.1980.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, as allottees under Government Order No. LB/7-C of 1958, had limited rights of possession/cultivation and were not entitled to full compensation as per Section 29 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, as allottees under Government Order No. LB/7-C of 1958, were entitled to full compensation or only one-third compensation as per Circular No. Rev-LB-10/80 dated 23.02.1980.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, having limited rights of possession/cultivation, were not entitled to full compensation as per Section 29 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act and Circular No. Rev-LB-10/80 dated 23.02.1980.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to full compensation.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to release the compensation amount awarded in their favour in terms of award bearing No. ADCK/LA/321-26 dated 16.06.2007 without deduction of two-third amount.
2. According to the petitioners, they were owners of the land falling under khasra No. 293/103 situated at Village Kalna, Tehsil and District, Kathua. It has been submitted that the land in question was their ancestral land and in the year 2003, acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Collector Land Acquisition, Kathua in connection with expansion of industrial area at Village Kalna. On 16.06.2007 final award came to be passed by respondent No. 3-Collector but only a part of the compensation has been released in favour of the petitioners and the balance amount has been withheld without any rhyme and reason. Hence the instant writ petition.
3. Respondent No. 3-Collector Land Acquisition, Kathua, in his reply to the writ petition has submitted that the land measuring 1423 kanals and 08 marlas situated at Village Kalana, Tehsil and District, Kathua was acquired and in terms of award dated 16.06.2007, compensation in the amount of Rs. 8,64,76,689.30/- was assessed. It has been submitted that the land measuring 163 kanals 16 marals in khasra No. 293/103 min situated at Village Kalna is part of the said acquisition. As per apportionment statement, share of petitioner No. 1 is shown as Rs. 9,93,600/- for land measuring 16 kanals, out of which one-third amount i.e. Rs. 3,31,200/- has been disbursed to him. Respondent No. 3 has taken a stand that only one-third land compensation has been paid to the petitioner(s) in view of the conditions laid down in Circular No. Rev-LB-10/80 dated 23.02.1980, according to which, only one-third compensation is to be paid to the allottees to whom the land has been allotted under various Government Orders etc.
4. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No. 3 in which it has been submitted that they have acquired the ownership of the land in question as allottees in terms of Government Order No. LB/7-C of 1958 dated 05.06.1958. It has been contended that the Land Acquisition Act does not make any classification between “persons interested” as defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990, therefore, the Circular dated 23.02.1980 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners’ case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
6. So far as the factual aspects of the case are concerned, the same are not in dispute. It is an admitted case of the parties that the land belonging to the petitioners has been acquired by the respondents and compensation has been assessed in respect of the land in question. It is also an admitted fact that the land of the petitioners that was acquired by the respondents allotted to them in terms of Government order No. LB/7-C of 1958 dated 05.06.1958. While the petitioners claim that being owners/allottees of the land in question, they are “interested persons” as such, entitled to full compensation, respondent No. 3 has taken a stand that in view of Circular No. Rev-LB-10/80 dated 23.02.1980 issued by the Revenue Department, the petitioners are only entitled to one-third of the compensation assessed. The question that requires to be determined is as to whether the petitioners can be denied full compensation in view of Circular dated 23.02.1980.
7. As already stated the petitioners have been granted ownership rights in respect of the land in question under Government order No. LB/7-C of 1958 dated 05.06.1958. Para (7) of Circular dated 23.02.1980 provides that only one-third compensation has to be paid in respect of allottees who have acquired the rights in respect of the land under different Government Orders etc. The same is reproduced as under:
Allottees under Government Order No. LB/7-C of 1958, with limited rights of possession/cultivation, are not entitled to full compensation under the J&K Land Acquisition Act.
Once proprietary rights were conferred under the Agrarian Reforms Act, the land ceased to be within the Act's purview, entitling the respondents to full compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Compensation rights in land acquisition are determined by the nature of ownership and legal claims, emphasizing the need for proper apportionment according to respective interests.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that possession and receipt of compensation qualify a person as 'interested' under the Land Acquisition Act, and just compensation must be award....
Possession of land grants entitlement to compensation despite lack of ownership, as established by prior judgments.
The court affirmed the obligation of the state to pay compensation for land acquisition as mandated by law, emphasizing the validity of the award and the constitutional right to property.
A legal heir is entitled to claimed compensation based on promises made by land acquisition authorities, regardless of significant delay, emphasizing principles of equity and promissory estoppel.
Subsequent purchasers of land can only claim compensation based on their vendors' titles and cannot challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under different statutes.
The court affirmed that delays in filing compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act can be overlooked in favor of equitable treatment, preserving citizens' property rights under Article 300A.
Co-owners of jointly acquired land entitled to same judicially determined enhanced compensation as awarded to one co-owner via reference and appeal, even without own application under Section 18 or 2....
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.