SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(J&K) 184

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
Dr. Posh Charak and others - Petitioners
Versus
U. T. of J&K and others - Respondents
WP(C) No. 624 of 2023
Decided On : 06-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Navneed Naik, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bharti, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG, Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG

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 constitutional rights.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Writ petition for restoration of possession of land unlawfully occupied by government authorities - Petitioners' ownership established through revenue records and demarcation - Respondents failed to legally acquire the land or compensate rightful owners - Court directs restoration of land or formal acquisition proceedings. (Paras 1-33)

(B) Right to Property - Deprivation without due process - Occupation by State without legal authority constitutes trespass - Right to property remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A - Doctrine of delay and laches not applicable as deprivation constitutes a continuing wrong. (Paras 19-24)

(C) Disputed Questions of Fact - Admission of illegal occupation by respondents negates argument of disputed facts; petition maintainable under Article 226 despite respondent's claims of fact disputes. (Paras 25-32)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners claim ownership of land under Khasra No. 1651 in Birpur, unlawfully occupied by respondents for decades without compensation or legal acquisition; title confirmed by revenue records and demarcation by official authorities. (Paras 2-6)

Findings of Court:
Occupation of petitioners' land amounts to trespass; respondents ordered to restore possession or initiate legal acquisition proceedings within three months. (Paras 32-33)

Issues: Whether respondents illegally occupied land without lawful acquisition and compensation; applicability of delay and laches doctrine; maintainability of writ petition despite disputed facts. (Paras 19-27)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the constitutional right to property and that State cannot justify illegal possession on grounds of delay; the legal requirement for acquisition must be fulfilled by the State. (Paras 19-24)

Result: Petition granted; respondents directed to restore land or follow acquisition process. (Para 33)

Table of Content
1. petition for mandamus relief regarding land acquisition. (Para 1)
2. petitioners' ownership and unlawful occupation of land. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
3. respondents' claims of ownership and objections. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
4. demarcation findings regarding land possession. (Para 13 , 15)
5. arguments regarding necessity of legal remedies. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. court's reasoning against laches and confirming legality. (Para 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 32)
7. conclusive evidence of unauthorized possession. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. court's order for restoration or legal acquisition. (Para 33)

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this w rit petition for the grant of following reliefs:

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent Nos'1 to 5 to provide the suitable alternative land measuring 41 Kanals and 02 Marlas to the petitioners in the same village Birpur, in lieu of their equivalent land of Khasra No 1651 of the village Birpur, District Samba.

WITH

Further Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the respondents 1 to 5 to vacate and restore the land measuring 41 kanals and 02 marlas falling under khasra No. 1651, situated at Birpur, Tehsil Bari-Brahmana, District Samba, Industrial Complex, and/or in the alternative, directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to acquire the aforesaid land under law and pay compensation to the petitioners and proforma-respondent No. 6 according to the present market value, under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency and Resettlement Act , 2013.

with

Further Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the respondents 1 to 5 to pay rental value of its unauthorized use and occupation from the date of possession of the aforesaid land till it's actually acquired and compensation is paid.

and

Further the issuance of any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Factual Matrix:

2. The subject land, measuring 41 kanals 02 marlas under Khasra No. 1651 in Birpur, was owned by Thakur Lakshman Singh Charak. Upon his death on 15.07.1983, the estate devolved upon his four children, Posh Charak (Petitioner No. 1), Meera Charak (Petitioner No. 2), Heera Charak, and Rajinder Singh Charak. The latter two are now deceased, with their interests represented by Petitioner No. 3 and Proforma Respondent No. 6. Supported by revenue records i.e. Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari 2018-2020, the petitioners allege that the official respondents have occupied the land unlawfully, without acquisition and providing just compensation.

3. The petitioners were previously unable to access revenue records for the subject land due to the seizure of Village Birpur's records by the Vigilance Organization. The petitioners first acquired knowledge of the current status of the land in March 2021 through the Tehsildar, Samba. Subsequent verification with the Patwari confirmed the petitioners' ownership and revealed that the official respondents had illegally occupied the land since 1983-84 without following due process of acquisition. Following an application for demarcation dated 20.03.2021 and payment of the prescribed fee, a spot inspection by the Naib-Tehsildar confirmed that the land is under the unauthorized possession of Respondent No. 5 (SICOP). Significantly, the revenue records do not reflect any right, title or interest in favour of Respondent No. 5. The Demarcation Report substantiating the aforesaid facts has been placed on record.

4. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 07.03.2022, seeking clarification from the Public Information Officer of Respondent No. 5 with regard to the status of the land. The petitioners specifically sought information as to whether the land had been legally acquired

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top