Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
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
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
Disputes regarding compensation apportionment for land acquisition must be resolved by the Principal Civil Court, not through writ jurisdiction, when an alternative remedy exists.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
Point of Law : It is a settled principle of interpretation of statute that the provisions of any statute are to be interpreted to give effect to each of them to the extent possible without giving any....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that disputes regarding apportionment of compensation under the National Highways Act should be referred to the principal civil court of origin....
If sub-section (2) of Section 3H of the Act of 1956 is looked into, the jurisdiction of the competent authority is nothing but to pay the compensation to the person or persons entitled thereto.
(1) Acquisition of land – If any dispute arises as to apportionment of amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom same or any part thereof is payable, then, competent authority shall refer d....
The competent authority under the National Highways Act lacks jurisdiction to apportion compensation and must refer such disputes to the Principal Civil Court.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
