Narayan Dutt And Others vs Union Of India And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1432 j&K

                                                                        Sr. No. 49

               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                             AT JAMMU


                                                       WP(C) No.2175/2022


Narayan Dutt and others                                      ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

                      Through :- Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate.

         V/s

Union of India and others                                                ....Respondent(s)


                      Through :-    Mr. Vipin Gandotra, Advocate for R-2.


Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

                                       ORDER

14.10.2022

By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners have inter alia

prayed for the following reliefs:

i. Mandamus to command and direct the respondent no.3 to issue the copy of the award in favour of the petitioners. ii. Mandamus to command and direct the respondent no.3 to deposit the compensation amount before the Principal District Judge, Samba with respect to the land of the petitioners comprising Khasra No.805 and 806 situated at village Tarore, Tehsil Samba now Tehsil Bari Brahmana, District Samba with the further direction to refer the dispute of the petitioners under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the determination of Fair Compensation and for its distribution, apportionment and entitlement under Section 3H(4) of the Act.

iii. Prohibition with the direction to prohibit the respondent No.3 from releasing or distributing the compensation amount till the disposal of entitlement of the petitioners by the Principal District Judge, Samba.

3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this petition are that a compromise

decree was passed by Sub Judge, Samba between Om Parkash and Sagro Devi

W/o Lt. Sh. Dharm Chand diving the land comprising Khasra No. 805, 806m

811, 726, 729, 730, 219, 238, 269, 647 situate at Village Tarore , Tehsil Samba

now Tehsil Bari Brahmana, District Samba vide judgment and decree dated

01.01.1992 in equal shares and again a compromise deed was executed between

Sagro Devi and Om Parkash stipulating that the above said land is owned and

possessed by Sh. Om Parkash and Sagro Devi in equal shares.

4. It is further submitted that Sagro Devi and Om Parkash have died and

petitioners are the only legal heirs of Lt. Sh. Om Parkash. The portion of land out

of Khasra No.805 and 806 owned and possessed by the petitioners as heirs of Lt.

Sh. Om Parkash have been acquired in which compensation has been determined

in the name of Sargo Devi now dead and father of the petitioners as cultivator

without any notice to the petitioners as Om Parkash has died and no notice has

been given by respondent no.3 to the petitioners who are heirs of Om Parkash.

The petitioners have not accepted the compensation because of the dispute with

the legal heirs of Sagro Devi and having no knowledge of the award.

5. It is further submitted that since there is a dispute between the

petitioners and heirs of Sagro Devi with regard to its entitlement and

apportionment which is required to be settled by District Judge, Samba and the

compensation determined under the award required to be deposited with District

Judge, Samba.

6. It is submitted by the petitioners that the official respondents are

releasing the compensation to the heirs of Sagro Devi to the exclusion of the

petitioners and to that extent, the petitioners approached the respondent no.3,

Deputy Commissioner, Samba by means of representation (Annexure-II, page-16

of the petition), which is alleged to be still pending before him.

7. A perusal of Annexure-II would reveal that the petitioners have

requested the respondent no.3 to apportion the compensation in their favour also

and in case of any dispute, the case be referred to the Principal District Judge,

Samba for deciding the entitlement of compensation.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submits that this writ petition

may be disposed of by directing the respondent no.3 to consider the

representation submitted by the petitioners for apportionment of compensation

within a reasonable time and till such time the representation is decided, the

compensation in respect of the land in question may not be released against any

of the parties.

9. Sh. Vipin Gandotra, learned counsel appears for the official

respondents.

10. In view of the submissions made above, we deem it appropriate to

dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent no.3, Deputy

Commissioner, Samba to consider and decide the representation submitted by

the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date copy of this order is

served upon him. Till the time representation is decided by the respondent no.3,

the respondent no.3 is directed not to release the compensation in favour of the

any of the parties with regard to the land in question.

11. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

                                 (Sindhu Sharma) )              (Tashi Rabstan)
                                       Judge                        Judge
Jammu:
14.10.2022
Raj Kumar
                                  Whether the order is speaking?           Yes/No
                                  Whether the order is reportable?         Yes/No