1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against an order and judgment dated 24.12.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ Court”] in WP(C) No. 1736/2023, titled Ltd. Col. Yesh Paul Sharma (Retd.) v. Union of India and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The appellant is aggrieved of the impugned judgment passed by the writ Court and challenges the same on the ground that the writ Court has failed to appreciate the material facts and the alleged irregularities in the acquisition proceedings.

3 We have heard the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The facts, in brief, are that land measuring 236 kanals and 13 marlas, comprising various khasra numbers situated at village Bhajwal (Mohra Sodra), Tehsil Sunderbani, came to be acquired for the establishment of the Sector Headquarters of the Border Security Force (BSF). The acquisition proceedings commenced with the notification issued under Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990, in March 2006. The Collector Land Acquisition subsequently made the final award bearing No. Coll/Def/48-49 dated 18.04.2011, assessing compensation at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per kanal, together with jabrana at the rate of 50 per cent.

4. The grievance raised in the writ petition primarily was with regard to the acquisition of land comprising khasra Nos. 1656, 1658 and 1670, measuring 64 kanals [“the subject land”]. The appellant before the writ court questioned the legality of the acquisition proceedings, the correctness of the revenue records relied upon by the acquiring authorities, the assessment and disbursement of compensation, as also the alleged failure of the authorities to release certain parcels of land. He also sought, inter alia, de-notification and restoration of land, and an inquiry into the alleged irregularities. He further sought a direction for payment of the compensation claimed to be due to him.

5. The learned Single Judge, while examining the matter, called upon the Collector Land Acquisition, Defence, Rajouri-Poonch, to appear in person along with the relevant record to explain the apportionment and payment of compensation. Upon examination of the record, the writ Court found that the appellant's father, Badri Nath, along with his two brothers, Tej Ram and Paras Ram, held a one-third share each in the land falling to their family share of 32 kanals.

6. The record produced before the writ Court indicated that 80 per cent of the compensation payable against the respective shares had been paid. In particular, an amount of Rs.15,70,133/- was shown to have been paid to Badri Nath vide cheque No. 731666 dated 03.02.2008. The relevant apportionment statement bore his signature in the column meant for the signatures of the payees, and there was nothing on record to indicate that the amount had been received under protest. The writ Court further found that the remaining 20 per cent of the compensation payable to Badri Nath, amounting to Rs.3,92,533/-, remained deposited with the Collector, as he had not approached the authority for its release.

7. The writ Court also took note of the fact that Badri Nath had died on 25.12.2022, whereas the writ petition was instituted in June 2023. The petition had nevertheless been instituted in his name, without his affidavit or signature. The learned writ Court, therefore, held that the appellant had instituted the proceedings in his deceased father’s name without establishing any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceedings in the manner claimed.

8. The writ Court, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant could not seek to reopen the concluded acquisition proceedings through the writ petition. It was, however, observed that the legal heirs could approach the competent authority for release of the remaining compensation, subject to obtaining the requisite succession certi