The right to property is a protected constitutional and human right. The state cannot forcibly occupy private land without due process. Pleas of voluntary donation lacking evidentiary support and arguments of delay are insufficient to deny landowners their legitimate right to fair compensation.

(JUDGMENT)

01. The Petitioners claim to be joint owners in possession of a piece of land measuring 01 Kanal and 06 Marlas falling under Survey No. 135 situate at village Naina, Gund Baba Khalil, Tehsil Bijbehara, District Anantnag, having devolved upon them after the death of their father; that the land of the Petitioners was occupied by the Respondents for construction of Government High School Naina, Gund Baba Khalil, Bijbehara, District Anantnag without acquiring the same in terms of the Land Acquisition Act; and that the father of the Petitioners had approached the Respondents for grant of compensation and after his death, the Petitioners had also been pursuing the case of compensation before the Respondents but they were denied the compensation, for their land.

02. It has been pleaded that when no compensation was provided to the Petitioners, they served a legal notice upon the Respondents on 14th of November, 2023 seeking compensation of the subject land at market value, however, the said legal notice did not evoke any response on part of the Respondents. In such circumstances, the Petitioners claim to have been constrained to file the instant Writ Petition before this Court, thereby seeking a direction upon the Respondents to formally acquire the subject land of the Petitioners in terms of law without any further delay and pay them adequate amount of compensation with respect thereto at the prevalent market value.

03. The Respondents have filed their Objections/ Reply, stating therein that the aforesaid land was donated by the locals of the area to the Education Department in the year 2006 purely on charitable grounds; that the land donor-Haji Munawar Allaie, who is the uncle of the Petitioners, never claimed any compensation for the donated land until his death on 23rd of August, 2012; and that upto the year 2015, no representation or claim regarding compensation for the subject land was submitted by the legal heirs of the deceased, as such, the Petitioners have approached this Court now after inordinate delay and the petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches.

04. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has, vehemently, argued that the Petitioners’ land is stated to have been under the possession of the Respondents, who had constructed building of Government Primary School, Naina, Gund Baba Khalil, when, at the relevant point of time, the right to hold property was a fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens of the country and such a fundamental right could not have been waived off by a citizen by remaining silent for pretty long time, more particularly, when the Government has failed in its constitutional obligation to follow the process of land acquisition, before taking over the private property of the citizens. He would argue that the Respondents have failed to place on record either any document so as to suggest that land in question had been donated by the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners to the Respondents, as claimed by them or any revenue entry with regard to this fact and in such a situation, the Respondents cannot take refuge under the plea of delay and laches, so as to deny the legitimate right of the Petitioners to hold their property or to seek compensation for that. He, thus, prayed that the Petition be allowed and the Respondents be directed to either handover the vacant possession of the land to the Petitioners or to pay its compensation to the Petitioners at the prevailing market value in the area.

05. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, ex-adverso, argued that the building of Government Primary School over the land in question was stated to have been constructed apparently on the land having been donated by the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners to the School