SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(J&K) 371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU 
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.
Pushpa Devi, D/o Lt. Sh. Nikku, W/o Sh. Puran Singh – Appellant 
Versus 
Union of India through Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways, Govt. of India, New Delhi – Respondent 
WP(C) No. 1251 of 2022 CM Nos. 3635 of 2022, 4380 of 2024 & 6303 of 2022 
Decided on : 30-08-2024 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. Mr. Vipan Gandotra, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate for R-5. Mr. G.S. Thakur, Advocate

Disputes regarding compensation apportionment for land acquisition must be resolved by the Principal Civil Court, not through writ jurisdiction, when an alternative remedy exists.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - National Highways Act, 1956 - Writ petitions filed by co-sharers seeking compensation for land acquisition for expressway construction - Petitioners claim entitlement based on revenue records, while respondents argue for apportionment disputes to be resolved by civil court - Court finds alternative remedy available under the Act and dismisses petitions. (Paras 1, 23, 25)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - High Court's jurisdiction is limited when an alternative and efficacious remedy exists - Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, co-sharers of land intended for acquisition for expressway construction, claim compensation based on revenue records, while respondents deny payment citing apportionment disputes. (Paras 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The court finds that the issue of compensation apportionment must be resolved by the Principal Civil Court, and the writ petitions are not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative remedy. (Paras 23, 25)

Issues: The main issues include the entitlement of petitioners to compensation and the appropriate forum for resolving apportionment disputes. (Paras 23, 25)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that disputes regarding compensation apportionment should be referred to the Principal Civil Court, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for disputed factual matters. (Paras 23, 24)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Before going into the facts of both the writ petitions, it is apt to mention that both the petitions have been filed by the co-sharers, who are the legal heirs of one Late Sh. Nikku and the subject matter and relief sought for by the petitioners in both the petitions are identical. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, this Court proposes to dispose of both the petitions collectively by way of a common judgment.

2. In both the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought similar reliefs, which read as follows: -

(I) MANDMUS, directing the official respondents to award compensation to the petitioners for the acquisition of their land measuring 08 Kanals 02 Marlas comprising under Khasra No. 806, land measuring 17 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 803 duly situated at Village Gura Beldaran, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua and also land measuring 01 Kanal 16 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 740 duly situated at Village Dhalli, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Jammu of which the petitioners are co-sharers alongwith respondent Nos. 5 and 6 according to their share and further direct the official respondent Nos. 1 to 4 not to carry on any construction work on the land of the petitioners till they are paid money/compensation as per their share and also direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 not to release any payment in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with respect to the abvestated land of which the petitioners are entitled.

OR

(II) Any other writ/order/direction which this Hon’ble Court may in the given facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.”

FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF WP( C) NOS. 1251/2022 & 1395/2022

3. In order to determine and settle the controversy in question, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case first, which are succinctly summarized as under: -

4. The father of the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 5 & 6, namely, Nikku was the actual owner in possession of land measuring 08 Kanals & 02 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 806, land measuring 17 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 803 duly situated at Village Gura Beldaran, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua and also land measuring 01 Kanal 16 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 740 duly situated at Village Dhalli, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Jammu, which is being intended to be acquired by the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 for construction of Delhi-Amritsar-Katra expressway. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have also measured the land and put up the marks as per the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and they are in the process of constructing the expressway after acquiring the same as per the Act. However, the petitioners, who are the owners/co-sharers in the abovesaid land alongwith respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are being denied the payment/compensation as per the Act for acquiring their land.

5. After the death of the father of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 & 6, who was the owner in possession of the abovestated land during his lifetime, the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and one sister, namely, Parkasho Devi became entitled to inherit and receive the abovesaid land, which is now being acquired by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for construction of Delhi- Amritsar-Katra expressway. It is averred in the petition that all the formalities to acquire the land as per the Act are to be complied by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The Acquittance roll is also prepared, but the petitioners, who are legally entitled being co-sharers of the land alongwith respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as per the revenue record, are being conveyed openly by the respondent No. 4 that they will not get any payment/compensation with respect to the abovesaid land, which is being acquired by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for the construction of six lane Delhi-Amritsar-Katra expressway despite having their names incorporated in the revenue record. This, the pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top