The court upheld the proprietary rights of landowners conferred by historical orders, emphasizing the necessity of due process in land acquisition.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners, in the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for the following reliefs:

• A writ of certiorari: quashing the impugned order No.Divcom/RA-AVS(10)2014 dated 16.05.2014 passed by the respondent No.2.

• A writ of mandamus: commanding the respondents to pay the compensation of the land measuring 1 kanal and 9 ½ marlas under Khasra No.323 min to the petitioners at the prevalent market rate including the interest @ 18% per annum till it is actually paid.

• A writ of mandamus: commanding the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs.6.00 laks for the user and occupation of the land. Also the petitioners be awarded exemplary litigation costs of Rs.3.00 lakhs”.

2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed and as stated in the petition, are that the petitioners claim to be the owners of land measuring 01 kanals and 9½ Marlas, falling under Survey No.323 Min situated at Shalimar, Srinagar and allege that respondents 6 and 7 herein, without following procedure prescribed by law, forcibly took over the possession of said land from the petitioners and also did not pay any compensation in respect thereof to the petitioners, compelling them to approach this Court through OWP no.864/2012, which petition came to be decided by this Court on 12.02.2014, with the direction to respondents 2 and 3 herein, to verify the title of the land belonging to the petitioners, measuring 01 Kanal and 9 ½ Marlas under Survey no.323 Min taken over by the respondents 6 and 7 and if the petitioners were found to be the proprietors, they be paid compensation after having the same assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition, Srinagar at market value and the said compensation be recovered from respondents 6 and 7 and paid to the petitioners within a period of one month after conducting title enquiry within three months and in the event of failure, the petitioners shall be entitled to the payment of interest @ 6% payable by the respondents 6 and 7.

3. It is further stated that the respondents 2 and 3, in pursuance of judgment dated 12.02.2014, carried out an exercise to verify the title of land in question and consequently, issued order dated 16.05.2014, holding that, as per the report of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, records produced by Tehsildar (North) Srinagar and the statement of petitioners, the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation has been found to be untenable and consequently rejected.

4. Aggrieved of the said order dated 16.05.2014, the petitioners herein, have maintained the instant petition on the premise that the impugned order was issued by respondent No.2 erroneously, overlooking the fact that land in question have had been recorded in the relevant revenue record in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners, having vested in them as proprietors being under therein occupancy/tenancy as Assamis, vide order passed by the then Prime Minister bearing No. G.B/602 dated 08.04.1993 Bikrami, followed by Notification No. S-92 published in the Government Gazette dated 15th Baisakh 1990 and that the impugned order in essence has reversed the effect of the said orders/notifications aimed at to deprive the petitioners of their proprietary land having vested in their ancestors in the year 1992 Bikrami and thereafter inherited by the petitioners and that the impugned order has been issued by taking a U-turn by the respondent 2 from the stand taken in the earlier round of litigation petition wherein the petitioners had been admitted to be the owners of the land in question and that revenue entries of the land in question reflected the names of ancestors of the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners as owners of the land in question which entries are presumed to be correct until contrary is proved in terms of Section 31 read with Section 35 of the Land Revenue Act 1996 and that the said entries have been in place without any alterat