Possession of land grants entitlement to compensation despite lack of ownership, as established by prior judgments.

JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this 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 awards dated 29.07.2020 and 20.08.2020 in lieu of the land measuring 2 Kanals 5 Marlas (survey No. 340 min), 5 kanals (survey No. 341), 14 kanals 18 marlas (survey No. 343), 9 marlas (survey No. 350), 6 marlas (survey No. 351) and 14 kanals and 15 marlas (survey No. 354) situated at Village Sumber Tehsil and District Ramban, acquired by the respondents vide awards mentioned above.

3. It is stated that the father of the petitioner was in possession of aforesaid land and after the death of the father of the petitioner, the aforesaid land has devolved upon the petitioner and the petitioner was enjoying the possession of the land. It is stated that in terms of SRO 432 of 1996, the petitioner is entitled to ownership right in respect of the land mentioned above. It is further stated that above mentioned land was acquired by respondent No. 3 for the construction of Sumber Station Yard work at Sumber and award dated 20.08.2020 has been passed by respondent No. 3 and an amount of Rs. 1,29,89,250/- has been assessed as compensation qua the land of the petitioner mentioned above. Further, the Collector has also passed award in respect of fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees amounting to. Rs. 8,69,694/-. Thus, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,38,58,694/- as compensation as mentioned above.

4. The petitioner has further submitted that he has visited the office of respondent No. 3 for release of the compensation assessed in terms of awards dated 29.07.2020 and 20.08.2020 but the same was not released in his favour. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in “Krishan Singh and Anr. Versus UT of J&K” JKJ Online 74173

5. The respondents have filed the response, stating therein that pursuant to the indent submitted by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Northern Railway, Banihal, the final award in respect of the acquisition of the land situated at Village Sumber at the rate of 4.5 lacs per kanal for Abi type of land and Rs. 3.00 lacs per kanal for khushki type of land was issued on 20.08.2020. It is further stated that the contention of the petitioner that he is owner of the land measuring 35 kanals and 5 marlas is baseless and far away from reality because as per the revenue record, the said land is the State land and is under unauthorized possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed in getting the mutation attested in his favour under Government Order No. S-432 and hence not entitled for compensation, which is owned by the State but is in unauthorized possession of the petitioner. It is further averred that the compensation of the land acquired by the respondents has been disbursed among the land owners and the allegations levelled against the respondents by the petitioner regarding distribution of compensation in pick and choose manner is contrary to the record. It is further stated that the judgment relied by the petitioner in the petition, titled, Krishan Singh vs. UT of J&K (supra) has been challenged before the Apex Court.

6. Mr. Bodh Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the apportionment statement of the acquired land, the official respondents have themselves shown the petitioner entitled to compensation and once they have not challenged the award in question, the respondents cannot deny the compensation payable to the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that he is in unauthorized occupation of the State land. He has further argued that against the judgment of the Division Bench as mentioned above, SLP was preferred by the respondents, however, the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21