A party cannot claim entitlement to compensation after forming a lease that permits a tenant to claim such compensation, especially when both are implicated in a transaction violative of applicable laws.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Sekhri, J.

1. Appellant has invoked, Letters Patent of this Court, to assail judgment dated 27.02.2024, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ court], vide which his writ petition came to be dismissed as not maintainable.

2. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it shall be expedient to have an overview of some uncontroverted facts.

3. The appellant claims to be owner in possession of a piece of land falling under Khasra No.37-Min, Khata No.21 and Khewat No.2, situate at Village Patli, Tehsil and District Samba. An Agreement to Sell came to be executed by him and notarized, in favour of respondent No.4 on 17.07.1997, by virtue of which, he agreed to sell one kanal of land to respondent No.4, for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-, through cheque bearing No.482697 dated 16.07.1997 of Canara Bank, Jammu and agreed to execute sale deed, within six months with a stipulation that in case of any defect in the title or possession, he shall pay double the amount to respondent No.4, to be recovered from his moveable and immovable property. Subsequently, he executed a Lease Deed in favour of respondent No.4 on 05.06.1999 with respect to the same land. Pertinently, the sale amount of Rs.50,000/-, which was paid by respondent No.4, by Cheque No.482697 dated 16.07.1997, to the appellant at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell, was treated as rent for the entire lease period. A notification came to be issued by Deputy Commissioner, Samba-respondent No.2 on 16.04.2022 for acquisition of land at different locations including Village Patli, Tehsil and District Samba, for the construction of Delhi- Amritsar-Katra Expressway under the National Highways Act and two marlas land, out of the aforesaid land, also came to be acquired. In the settlement proceedings Khasra No.37-Min was allotted new Khasra No.140 and the said khasra number was also reflected in the notice of District Collector, Land Acquisition-respondent No.3. An award came to be prepared and issued by respondents 2 and 3 in favour of respondent No.4, who figured at Sr. No.13 of the list against Khasra No.140, though appellant was shown as owner of the subject land.

4. The case set out by the appellant is that neither agreement to sell nor lease deed confer any title upon respondent No.4. Agreement to sell was cancelled with the consent of the parties and since respondent No.4 did not file any case against him for execution of sale deed, the award amount cannot be released in favour of his tenant, respondent No.4, who only has right of use and occupation of the subject land. It is also case of the appellant that he filed three applications for release of compensation in his favour, but, neither those applications were decided nor he was given an opportunity of being heard by the Collector and respondent No.3 arbitrarily proceeded to release compensation in favour of respondent No.4.

5. The appellant sought following reliefs in his Writ Petition:

“i. Mandamus: For commanding and directing the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to release the land compensation of the land measuring two marla falling under Khasra no.140/37 situated on National Highway at village Patli Morh district Samba which is owned by the petitioner and given on lease to the respondent No.4.

ii. Prohibition, commanding and restraining the respondent no.2 & 3 from releasing the land compensation in favour of the respondent no.4 which respondent no.2 & 3 are going to release in favour of respondent no.4 by exceeding their power.

iii. Any other appropriate order or dir