Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ram Saran vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2024
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 09.10.2023
Pronounced on: 25.10.2023
OWP No. 764/2016
1. Ram Saran, .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
age 75 years, S/O Late Sh. Sant
Ram R/O Jatwal, Tehsil and
District, Samba (J&K)
Through: Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate.
vs
1. Union of India ..... Respondent(s)
Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways Th. Its Secretary, New Delhi
2. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu
3. Deputy Commissioner, Samba.
4. Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Samba.
5. Assistant Commissions Revenue
(Collector Land Acquisition),
Samba.
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this
writ petition was finally heard.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing order No.
502/1683/12/NH/Smb/6886 dated 28.03.2012 passed by the
respondent No. 2, whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner
for entitlement to compensation in respect of land measuring 2 Kanals
6 Marlas comprising survey No. 662/417 situated at Village Sangwali,
Tehsil and District Samba, with further prayer for directing the
respondents to pay compensation at the prevalent market rate to the
petitioner in respect of land mentioned above.
3. The petitioner has sought the abovementioned reliefs on the ground
that the respondents for the purpose of constructing/expanding
National Highway, acquired the land of the petitioner measuring 02
Kanals 6 Marlas comprising survey No. 662/417 situated at Village
Sangwali, Tehsil and District Samba and final award dated 18.04.2011
was also issued by the respondent No. 2 but the petitioner was not paid
the compensation as determined in the final award on the ground that
his name was not reflected as owner in the revenue record. It is stated
that the petitioner submitted a representation with the respondent No.
3 that he was recorded as owner in respect of the land, and it was the
Patwari concerned who for the apparent reasons did not reflect the
name of the petitioner in the revenue records. It is further pleaded that
to the dismay of the petitioner compensation pertaining to the land
owned by the petitioner was deposited by the respondent No. 3 in
District Treasury vide T. R. No. 1 dated 06.05.2011. The
representation submitted by the petitioner was forwarded by the
respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 4 on 14.12.2011 and he was
directed to investigate the matter. The said representation was further
marked to the Patwari concerned by the respondent No. 4. The
respondent No. 4 vide his communication dated 28.02.2012 addressed
to the respondent No. 2 stated that had the entry of the mutation been
entered in the record before initiating acquisition proceedings, the
compensation would not have been deposited under account head of
land revenue being the state land. It was also stated in the said
communication that mutation has been attested on 06.02.2008 and the
acquisition proceedings were initiated subsequently. Accordingly, the
respondent No. 4 recommended the the case of the petitioner for
disbursement of compensation. However, the respondent No. 5 under
the instruction of respondent No. 2, vide his communication dated
28.03.2012 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the
compensation could not be released in favour of the occupant, even if
he has been vested with the ownership rights post facto. The petitioner
claims to have made numerous representations to the respondents but
nothing was done and ultimately the respondent No. 3 referred the
case to the learned Principal District Judge, Samba under Section 31 of
the Land Acquisition Act for disposal under law, but the learned
Principal District Judge, Samba rejected the reference under Section
31 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the acquisition
proceedings had concluded and the amount was required to be paid to
the land owners.
4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have filed the response, stating therein that
land measuring 2 Kanals 6 Marlas comprising survey No. 662/417
besides other Khasra numbers situated at Village Sangwali, Tehsil and
District Samba was acquired for public purpose i.e. for widening of
National Highway vide final award issued under No.
DCS/NHW/LAS/ACR/11-12 dated 18.04.2011. Compensation in
respect of said Khasra numbers amounting to Rs. 15,87,000/- was
deposited in the District Treasury vide T. R. No. 1 dated 06.05.2011
under the account Head No. 0029LR as the said land was reflected as
state land in the revenue records. It is further stated that the
petitioner's name was reflected in the final award as a "tenant" and
ownership of the said land was vested with the State, meaning thereby
that the revenue record available at that time did not reflect the
petitioner as owner of the said land.
5. Mr. Rohit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner was owner of the land measuring 02 Kanals 6 Marlas
comprising survey No. 662/417 situated at Village Sangwali, Tehsil
and District Samba but due to error of the revenue authorities, he was
reflected as tenant of the land and the land was shown to have been
owned by the State, whereas the fact remains that the petitioner was
conferred ownership rights under Govt. Order No. S- 432 vide
mutation No. 481 attested on 06.02.2008.
6. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted
that in the revenue record, the petitioner was shown as tenant, as such,
compensation was not paid to the petitioner.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. A perusal of the record reveals that the mutation bearing No. 481 was
attested in favour of the petitioner in the year 2008 with regard to the
land measuring 04 Kanals 10 Marlas. A perusal of the final award
reveals that the land measuring 02 Kanals and 06 Marlas comprising
Khasra Nos. 662/417 situated at Village Sangwali, Tehsil and District
Samba was acquired and the state was shown as owner, whereas the
petitioner was shown as tenant. It needs to be noted that the
declaration under Section 4 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act was
issued on 04.09.2009, meaning thereby that the petitioner was already
conferred with the ownership rights in respect of the land measuring
04 Kanals 10 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 662/417 situated at
Village Sangwali, Tehsil and District Samba. It appears that in the
Khasra Girdawari such entry was not made as a result of which the
State was reflected as owner of the land measuring 02 Kanals and 06
Marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 662/417 situated at Village Sangwali,
Tehsil and District Samba and the petitioner was shown as a tenant of
the same. The mutation placed on record reveals that the petitioner
was conferred with the ownership rights under Govt. Order No. S-432
in respect of land measuring 04 Kanals 10 Marlas comprising survey
Nos. 662/417 situated at Village Sangwali, Tehsil and District Samba
vide mutation No. 481 attested on 06.02.2008. Further a perusal of the
communication dated 28.02.2012 addressed to the respondent No. 2
reveals that the matter was examined through Tehsildar Samba, who
has got the entry of said mutation incorporated in the record of Khasra
Girdawari, but erroneously the compensation in respect of land
comprising Khasra No. 662/417 min measuring 02 Kanals 06 Marlas
amounting to Rs. 15,87,000/- being state land was deposited in the
Samba Treasury vide T. R. No. 1 dated 06.05.2011 under account head
No. 0029 Land Revenue. It is mentioned in the said communication
that had the said mutation been entered into the record before initiating
the process of acquisition, the compensation would not have been
deposited under the account head No. 0029 Land Revenue.
9. For what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner being the owner of the land
measuring 02 Kanals 06 Marlas comprising survey Nos. 662/417
situated at Village Sangwali, Tehsil and District Samba cannot be
deprived of the compensation in lieu of the land acquired for the
purpose of extension of National Highway on the ground that the
compensation stands already deposited in the account head 0029/LR
and it would not be appropriate to make payment to the occupant of
the State land, even if he has been vested with ownership rights post
facto. The very basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant
of compensation is misconceived. Rather it would be injustice to the
petitioner if the compensation is not paid to him, merely because the
petitioner was not shown as owner in the revenue record because of
the fault of the revenue authorities, particularly when he was the
owner of the land prior to initiation of acquisition proceedings.
10. Viewed thus, this Court is of the considered view that order dated
28.03.2012 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is
quashed. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to ensure that the
amount of Rs. 15,87,000/- deposited in the District Treasury vide T. R.
No. 1 dated 06.05.2011 under the account Head No. 0029LR is
released in favour of the petitioner. The needful shall be done within a
period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is
made available the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, failing which, the
petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum
from the date of filing of the instant petition till the actual disbursal of
compensation.
11. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
25.10.2024
Sahil Padha
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
