Mohd. Farooq Age 58 Years vs Collector Land Acquisition Defence
2024 Latest Caselaw 1648 j&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Mohd. Farooq Age 58 Years vs Collector Land Acquisition Defence on 21 August, 2024

Author: Rahul Bharti

Bench: Rahul Bharti

                                                                  Sr. No. 77


     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

 Case No.:-    MA No. 28/2024
               CM No. 4861/2024

     1. Mohd. Farooq age 58 years
     2. Mohd. Shokit age 49 years

     Both sons of Mohd. Yousif
     Both R/o Dhangri Tehsil and District Rajouri

                                                                .....Appellant(s)

                 Through: Mr. Mazhar Ali Khan, Advocate.

                  Vs

     1. Collector Land Acquisition Defence, Rajouri-Poonch.
     2. DIG, Border Security Force, Rajouri

                                                              ..... Respondent(s)

                  Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice
                           Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1.
                           Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI for R-2.

 Coram:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

                                     ORDER

21.08.2024

1. By reference to Section 52 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land

Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990, the appellants are seeking to

impugn the judgment dated 08.07.2024 passed by the

reference court of learned Principal District Judge, Rajouri on

file No. 07/Reference of 2012.

2. By virtue of a judgment dated 25.10.2012, the reference court

of learned Principal District Judge, Rajouri has refused to

entertain the reference as being time barred and also on

account of the appellants having failed to move a motion before

the Collector Land Acquisition concerned for making reference

to the reference court under section 18 of the Jammu and

Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990.

3. By virtue of land acquisition award dated 03.03.1999,

Collector Land Acquisition, Rajouri had come to acquire the

land which included the land of the appellants and the

compensation assessed came to be received by the appellants

though under protest but from the appellants' end there was

no formal application made for generating a reference on

account of inadequate compensation assessed.

4. The appellants came to approach this Court by filing a writ

petition-OWP No. 1111/2012 with a grievance that their

application for reference was not being forwarded in their

favour by the Collector Land Acquisition, Rajouri despite

expiry of so many years.

5. Said writ petition-OWP No. 1111/2012 came to be disposed of

on the statement of the counsel for the appellants without

putting the respondents on notice in terms of an order dated

09.08.2012. For facility of reference, the operating direction

passed in the said writ petition is reproduced hereunder:

"....In view of the short controversy involved, this petition is disposed of at this stage, itself

with a direction to respondent-2 to process the application of the petitioners in accordance with rules and make reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, provided the application has been filed within time. Let the needful be done within four weeks from the date a copy of this order is received...."

6. Accordingly, the reference proceedings came to be initiated

before the reference court of learned Principal District Judge,

Rajouri which has come up with the finding that the

appellants had made no such application seeking reference

before the Collector Land Acquisition concerned and as such,

the present reference made by the appellants before the

learned Principal District Judge, Rajouri was not maintainable

being time barred.

7. This Court sees no factual or legal error in the judgment of the

learned Principal District Judge, Rajouri keeping in view the

fact that after having accepted the compensation even if under

protest, if the appellants had made any such application as

was alleged to have been made on 27.11.2019 before the

Collector Land Acquisition concerned, then the appellants, by

no stretch of imagination, would have remained in a sleeping

mode for ten long years to wake up and that too for coming

directly to this Court with the writ petition instead of

confirming the fact from the Collector Land Acquisition

concerned as to why their application for reference was not

forwarded to the Reference Court.

8. Even before the Reference Court, the appellants failed to prove

as a fact from their end regarding any such application having

been filed on 27.11.1999 before the Collector concerned for the

sake of seeking the reference. As such, this Court finds no

merit inviting this Court to lend any indulgence in the matter

as doing so would be amounting to nothing but encouraging

frivolous litigation at the cost of time and energy of this Court.

9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed as

being without merit.

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 21.08.2024 Naresh/Secy.