Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
S SURINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO GOVT RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT AND OTHERS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. evacuee land allotted to displaced person, occupied without acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 8) |
| 2. unsubstantiated donation and delay do not bar compensation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. article 300a requires due process and evidence for deprivation. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. precedents reject state defenses of consent, possession, delay. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. direct acquisition process for compensation payment. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
M A CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Petitioner claiming to be the son of his predecessor-in-interest namely Suchet Singh, a displaced person from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, who had occupied a piece of evacuees’ property land measuring 3 kanals and 16 marlas falling under khasra No.234 min (old) new 159 situated at village Halqa, Tehsil Jammu now Tehsil Marh District Jammu, has asserted that the aforesaid piece of land was initially allotted to his predecessor-in-interest, vide Government Order No.578-C and after coming into force, the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, occupancy rights under section 3-A of Agrarian Reform Act, were also conferred upon him; and that after the death of his father, the petitioner namely Suchet Singh has acquired the occupancy rights in the land in
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 court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
The State cannot dispossess individuals of property without proper legal processes, affirming the entitlement to compensation for land occupied without due course of law.
The State must compensate landowners for land acquired for public use, as the right to property is a constitutional right that cannot be extinguished by delay or adverse possession.
Forcible dispossession of property without due process violates constitutional rights; delay and laches are not applicable in cases of continuing cause of action.
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 ....
Article 300A only limits powers of State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
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
