HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.
Pushpa Devi and others -Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt. – Respondent
WP(C) No.554 of 2021
Decided On : 16-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners inherited land; temporary use permitted for parking. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondents in continuous possession since 1968 for public use. (Para 6) |
| 3. petitioners claim due process; respondents plead delay, adverse possession. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. ownership admitted; no acquisition or compensation paid. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. property protected under article 300a; due process required. (Para 11) |
| 6. state cannot claim adverse possession against citizens. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. delay and laches rejected in continuing property wrongs. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.
1. The petitioners in the instant petition have invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to seek a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to handover the possession of the land measuring 5 kanal 4 marlas comprising in Khasra No.436/268 (3 marlas), Khasra No.437/268 2 kanal 10 marlas), Khasra No.438/249 (11 marlas), Khasra No.439/269 (12 marlas), Khasra No.440/269 (1 kanal 6 marlas) and Khasra No.435/268 (12 marlas) situated at Katra (hereinafter to be referred to as “subject land”) or in the alternate to acquire the said land under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay compensation therefor.
Factual Matrix
2. It is stated that the petitioners have inherited the subject land from their predecessors-in-interest, who were the recorded owners in possession, which is so reflected in the revenue record including Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 svt. Vide SRO 112 dated 07.03.1963, Notified Area Committee, Katra was constituted and the landed property of the then village Katra fell within the boundaries of the Notified Area Committee, Katra.
3. For temporary use of parking of vehicles in Katra town the respondents required some land, a portion of the land including the subject land, was selected for the temporary parking of vehicles and with the permission of predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, the respondents started using the subject land along with other land as parking space. According to the petitioners, the respondents were allowed to use the subject land temporary for parking of vehicles on the assurance that in case the same would be required permanently, the respondents would acquire the same in accordance with law and pay compensation for the same.
4. With the enactment of Municipal Act of 2000, J&K Municipal Act. Svt. 2008 and Notified Area Act Svt. 2011 have been repealed and the Notified Area Committee, Katra has been renamed as Municipal Committee, Katra.
5. It is stated that the respondents have acquired land measuring 464 kanals under different khasra numbers at village Kundrorian, outside the municipal limits for construction of bus stand/parking place, which is almost complete, as such, the subject land would no longer be required by the respondents. It is stated that the petitioners have approached the concerned officers number of times for handing over the possession of the subject land to them or to acquire the same after payment of compensation, but till date neither the subject land has been vacated nor has it been acquired. It is further stated that the respondents had taken possession of the subject land without payment of any compensation and that they cannot be allowed to use the subject land for indefinite period.
4. On the contrary, the respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioners by filing their objections. It is stated that the subject land has been under continuous possession of the Municipal Committee, Katra since 1968- 1969 till date without any hindrance and resistance from any quarter. It is further stated that there exists a public road, besides an auto stand also operates and is being run by the auto union from the subject land. According to the respondents, some portion of the land lying open and is being us
Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
State as welfare entity cannot claim adverse possession over private property; must acquire with compensation or return possession. Delay and laches rejected for continuing deprivation without due pr....
State's unauthorized occupation of private property without acquisition violates Article 300A; unsubstantiated donation claims rejected; delay and laches no bar to compensation for continuing wrong. ....
The State cannot plead adverse possession in respect of the land of its citizens under its unauthorized occupation, and delay and latches cannot be used to deny compensation to the citizens deprived ....
The lawful possession of land cannot be violated by the State without due process; failure to acquire legally results in trespass, warranting restoration or formal acquisition proceedings under const....
Where the deprivation of property without sanction of law is admitted and clearly established, there is no difficulty in applying above principle and, as such, a petition for compensation cannot be d....
Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.