HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.
S. Saroop Singh & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondent
OWP No. 1885/2017 & IA No. 01/2017
Decided on : 14-12-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. displaced persons' rights to compensation for land. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. impact of governmental agreements on land rights. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal validation of land occupancy and rights. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. requirements for lawful dispossession of property. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. rehabilitation and compensation under law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 6. government obligations for property rights. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 7. emphasis on due process in property acquisition. (Para 24 , 50) |
JUDGEMENT
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners on behalf of all the family members/descendents of 24 displaced persons (DPs) of 1947 to whom the land measuring 224 Kanals and 10 Marlas falling under Khasra Nos. 2, 3 and 6 of Village Chatha, Jammu was allotted in the year 1953 by the State Government for their rehabilitation under Government Order No. 578-C of 1954 for vindication of their common rights for getting compensation for the aforementioned land from the respondent-Union of India, which according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is illegally and unlawfully occupied by the respondent-Union of India.
2. The petitioners through the medium of instant petition have sought the following reliefs:-
b. Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to 4 to pay the rental compensation to the petitioners as assessed by the respondent no. 5 for the forcible possession over the land measuring 224 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land falling Under Khasra no. 2, 3 and 6 of Village Chatha, Jammu which was allotted to the DPs of 1947 in the year 1953 by the State Government for their rehabilitation under Government Order No. 578-C of 1954;
c. Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to 4 to hand over the possession of the land measuring 224 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land falling under Khasra no. 2, 3 and 6 of Village Chatha, Jammu which was allotted to the DPs of 1947 in the year 1953 by the State Government for their rehabilitation under Government Order No. 578-C of 1954 and was forcibly taken over by the respondent no. 1 to 4 or in alternative;
d. Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to 4 to adopt the due procedure as laid down under J&K Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land measuring 224 kanals and 10 marlas of land falling under Khasra no. 2, 3 and 6 of Village Chatha, Jammu which was allotted to the DPs of 1947 in the year 1953 by the State Government for their rehabilitation under Government Order No. 578-C of 1954, if they are in need of the same;
e. And any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents."
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are displaced persons of 1947 from Tehsil Bagh Village Dhare, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir in its policy to rehabilitate the refugees of 1947, allotted a total area of 224 Kanals and 10 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 2, 3 & 6 in village Chatha, Jammu in the year 1953. The case of the petitioners is that the land in question was originally a private land, belonged to the private persons and after coming into force the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, the same was escheated to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The further case of the petitioners is that after the allotment of this land to the petitioners and their predecess
The State cannot dispossess individuals of property without proper legal processes, affirming the entitlement to compensation for land occupied without due course of law.
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....
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....
The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, requiring due process and compensation for any deprivation.
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 ....
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and can be denied due to unreasonable delay in seeking relief.
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.