HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, J
GAIN CHAND/SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR TH SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) 1855 / 2021
JUDGMENT :
1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition for directing the respondents to release the compensation in his favour, as already assessed by respondent No. 3 in accordance with the award dated 31.07.2015 in lieu of the land measuring 13 Kanal 8 Marlas comprising Survey Nos. 156, 133/3 situated at Village Sangaldan Tehsil Gool, District Ramban, acquired by the respondents vide award dated 31.07.2015.
3. The respondents have filed the response stating therein that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as they are in illegal possession of the State land and further that the judgments in "Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & ors.’ and ‘Krishan Singh vs. U.T of J&K‟ are not applicable in the instant case because in this case the land has been acquired at the instance of Northern Railways and not the U.T of J&K. Further, the compensation was paid only to those, whose possession was regularised under any Government Order issued from time to time and that too only to the extent of 1/3rd of the compensation in terms of SRO 495 of 2002. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 21.08.2021, titled, “Krishan Singh and Anr. Versus UT of J&K passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 153/2020.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that the original petitioner was in illegal possession of the State land measuring 21 Kanal 3 Marlas comprising survey numbers as mentioned above. Award reveals that the land measuring 13 Kanal 8 Marlas comprising Survey Nos. 156, 133/3 situated at Village Sangaldan Tehsil Gool, District Ramban, stands acquired vide award dated 31.07.2015 and the statement of compensation reveals that total compensation assessed in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 along with jabrana is Rs. 23,60,725.
7. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in “Krishan Singh and Anr. Versus UT of J&K” bearing LPA No. 153/2020 decided on 21.08.2021 , in paras '6', '7' and '8' has observed as under: -
“6. From a perusal of the award` passed in the instant case and the apportionment statement prepared by the Collector Land Acquisition, Gool, it is abundantly clear that the compensation has been worked out by the Collector in the name of the appellants, who have been found to be in cultivating possession thereof. No doubt, the State is the owner of the State land, but as is held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharda Devi (supra) that the Government, not being a person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act, has no right to compensation payable for the land owned and possessed by it. To be precise, the State land cannot be made subject matter of acquisition at the instance of and for the benefit of the Government. Otherwise also, the award passed by the Collector Land Acquisition, Gool in the instant case has become final and the respondents have not challenged the same. It, thus, does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the appellants, though named in the apportionment statement to receive the compensation, should be denied the compensation on the ground that they are not the owner of the land acquired, but were only found to be in cultivating possession.
7. This Court considered similar question in case titled ‘Krishana vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors’ (OWP No. 1101/2016) and, after relying upon several judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court, concluded that the person in possession of the land is a ‘person interested’ and entitled to compensation of the acquired land as per the final award, even though he may not be owner of the property and the land is a State land. It is not in dispute that the appellants have been in long continuous possession of the land and have, therefore, acquired sufficient interest in the land to claim com
A person in possession of land, even if not the owner, is entitled to compensation for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act.
Possession of land grants entitlement to compensation despite lack of ownership, as established by prior judgments.
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.
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.
The State must comply with due process for land acquisition and compensate fairly; failure to follow procedures amounts to a constitutional violation.
Point of law: Act of the appellant-State Government is arbitrary and illegal in denying the compensation to the real owner.
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....
State authorities must follow legal procedures for property acquisition, ensuring citizens' rights to legal remedies and compensation for unlawful dispossession, as stipulated under Article 300-A of ....
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.