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

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 630

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR


WP(C) 1010/2026

CM(2642/2026)


Reserved on: 8th May, 2026.

Pronounced on: 14th May, 2026

Uploaded on: 15th May, 2026

Whether operative part or full judgment has been pronounced: Full


Autar Krishan Dhar, Age 65 years

S/o Late Shri Jagger Nath Dhar

R/o Lane No. 22, Block 134, Flat No. 17,

Jagti Township, Nagrota, Jammu.

…Petitioner(s)


Through: M/s Sumir Pandita and Imran Ahmad Rather, Advocates (Through Virtual Mode).


Vs.


1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar.

2. Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara.

3. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Handwara.

4. Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti Department, Kashmir.

5. Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Division, Handwara.

6. Collector (Land Acquisition), Kupwara.

...Respondent(s)


CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Judge.

JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:

(I) Quash and set aside the Private Negotiation Committee (PNC) proceedings dated 05-02-2019, whereby the compensation for the land of the petitioner was purportedly fixed as Rs. 4,78,000/-, as being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(II) With a prayer to command the respondents to initiate fresh and proper land acquisition proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and to determine the market value and compensation for the land of the petitioner measuring 1 kanal and 4 marlas under Survey no. 133, Village Villagam, Doolipoora, Tehsil Handwara, District Kupwara, strictly in accordance with Section 26 to 30 of the said Act.

(III) With a further prayer to command the respondents to pay to the petitioner reasonable rent/rental compensation for unauthorized use and occupation of his land measuring 1 kanal and 4 marlas from the year 2003 till the date of final payment of compensation, computed on the basis of the prevailing market rental rates.

(IV) Pass such other and further orders, writs, or directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

BRIEF FACTS:

2) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner claims originally to be a resident of Village Villagam, Doolipoora, Tehsil Handwara, District Kupwara, who migrated to Jammu in the year 1990 due to adverse security conditions in the Valley. He claims to be the owner of land measuring 4 Kanals and 5 Marlas under Survey No. 133 at Village Villagam Doolipoora, Tehsil Handwara. According to him in 2003, the respondent Jal Shakti Department occupied 1 Kanal and 4 Marlas of the said land for a water reservoir without any formal acquisition process or notice.

3) Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Jammu Bench of this Court bearing OWP No. 456/2005, which was disposed of on 03-04-2008 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for release of rent as well as compensation of the land in accordance with law. However, since, the respondents did not choose to comply the order dated 03-04-2008, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, bearing CPOWP No. 46/2009. During the pendency of the said contempt proceedings, the respondents filed a statement of facts claiming that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) had been deposited with the Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Handwara, vide Cheque No. 17808,000051000 dated 25-09-2013, on the basis of which statement of facts, the contempt petition was closed by the Court vide order dated 10-09-2018, in the absence of the petitioner.

4) The petitioner further states that aggrieved of the continued inaction and failure of the respondents to provide lawful compensation, he filed a representation before the Governor’s Grievance Cell, Jammu, following which the OSD to Advisor on 14-12-2018 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara to take necessary action on merit and to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said representation filed in December 2018, a Private Negotiation Committee (for short PNC) meeting was held on 05-02-2019, whereby the compensation was fixed at Rs. 4,78,000/-. The petitioner claims this meeting was conducted without his knowledge.

5) The petitioner further submits that thereafter he was actively pursuing his case with the respondents, during the course of which, various inter se communications were issued by the respondents, and which finally culminated in communication dated 04

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