In disputed land acquisition compensation apportionment, competent authority must refer to Principal Civil Court under National Highways Act Section 3H(4) and withhold payment; writ court cannot direct release ignoring co-owners, pending suits without hearing.

JUDGMENT :

SHAHZAD AZEEM, J.

1. The appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal being aggrieved of the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 504/2025 titled “Abdul Ahad Bhat v. Union Territory of J&K and others”, whereby the writ petition filed by the private respondent was disposed of with a direction to the official respondents, particularly respondent No. 3–Collector Land Acquisition, Baramulla (Additional Deputy Commissioner), to ensure payment of compensation as per the award to the petitioner therein within a period of eight weeks, failing which, the same was to be payable at the rate of 6% per annum.

2. The case of the writ petitioner (private respondent herein) before the learned Single Judge was that his land and structures under Survey No. 4320/2012, situated at Tapper Waripora, Pattan, forming part of his immovable property, had been acquired for the purpose of widening of the Srinagar– Baramulla National Highway (NH-44). It was pleaded that though an award had been passed in the matter, the compensation amount assessed in his favour had not been disbursed despite repeated representations. On the basis of the material produced, particularly the apportionment statement showing the petitioner’s land and structures, the learned Single Judge considered the matter to be capable of disposal at the threshold stage and directed release of compensation in favour of the private respondent.

3. The appellants, who were not arrayed as parties in the writ petition, have assailed the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the land under Survey No. 2012 does not exclusively belong to the private respondent, but is joint and unpartitioned property inherited by the parties from their common ancestors namely Ahmad @ Amma, Mohideen @ Mahada, and Sannaullah @ Sona, sons of Late Aziz Bhat, who had received the said land measuring two kanals by way of exchange with the State under File No. 182/CHP dated 14.07.1970. It is stated that upon the demise of the said ancestors, the property devolved upon their respective legal heirs, including the appellants and the private respondent, in equal proportion, and that the property continues to remain unpartitioned.

4. It is the further case of the appellants that a portion of the said land came under acquisition due to highway widening, and the private respondent, in alleged connivance with the revenue field staff, managed to obtain a title certificate in his favour on the basis of a purported private family partition which, according to the appellants, never took place. They assert that a civil suit for partition, possession, declaration, and permanent injunction titled “Abdul Aziz Bhat & others v. Abdul Ahad Bhat and others” is pending before the Court of the learned Sub-Judge, Pattan, and that an application under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, seeking reference to the learned Principal District Judge, Baramulla, for deciding apportionment of compensation with respect to property in question falling under Survey No. 2012, is also pending adjudication.

5. The grievance of the appellants, therefore, is that the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 has been passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard, even though they are co-owners of the property. According to them, the direction for payment of the entire compensation to the private respondent has affected their lawful share in the acquired land. They submit that by doing so, the learned Single Judge has virtually al