Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Gain Chand/Singh Age 70 Years vs Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir Through Its on 27 February, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 11.02.2025
Pronounced on: 27.02.2025
WP(C) No. 1855/2021
CM No. 6985/2021
CM No. 6899/2024
Gain Chand/Singh Age 70 years .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
S/o Sh. Sunder Singh
R/o Sangaldan Tehsil Gool District
Ramban
Through: Mr. Bodh Raj Sharma, Advocate
vs
1. UT of Jammu & Kashmir Through its ..... Respondent(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar/Jammu.
2. Deputy Commissioner Ramban.
3. Collector Land Acquisition (SDM) Gool
District Ramban.
Through: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate vice
Mrs. 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 has been taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition for directing the respondents to
release the compensation in his favour, as already assessed by respondent
No. 3 in accordance with the award dated 31.07.2015 in lieu of the land
measuring 13 Kanal 8 Marlas comprising Survey Nos. 156, 133/3 situated
at Village Sangaldan Tehsil Gool, District Ramban, acquired by the
respondents vide award dated 31.07.2015.
3. The respondents have filed the response stating therein that the petitioner
is not entitled to any compensation as they are in illegal possession of the
State land and further that the judgments in „Sharda Devi vs. State of
Bihar & ors.' and 'Krishan Singh vs. U.T of J&K‟ are not applicable in
the instant case because in this case the land has been acquired at the
instance of Northern Railways and not the U.T of J&K. Further, the
compensation was paid only to those, whose possession was regularised
under any Government Order issued from time to time and that too only to
the extent of 1/3rd of the compensation in terms of SRO 495 of 2002.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated
21.08.2021, titled, "Krishan Singh and Anr. Versus UT of J&K passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 153/2020.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that the original petitioner was in illegal
possession of the State land measuring 21 Kanal 3 Marlas comprising
survey numbers as mentioned above. Award reveals that the land
measuring 13 Kanal 8 Marlas comprising Survey Nos. 156, 133/3 situated
at Village Sangaldan Tehsil Gool, District Ramban, stands acquired vide
award dated 31.07.2015 and the statement of compensation reveals that
total compensation assessed in favour of the petitioner by the respondent
No. 3 along with jabrana is Rs. 23,60,725.
7. The Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court in "Krishan Singh and Anr.
Versus UT of J&K" bearing LPA No. 153/2020 decided on 21.08.2021, in
paras „6‟, „7‟ and „8‟ has observed as under: -
"6 From a perusal of the award` passed in the instant case and the
apportionment statement prepared by the Collector Land
Acquisition, Gool, it is abundantly clear that the compensation has
been worked out by the Collector in the name of the appellants,
who have been found to be in cultivating possession thereof. No
doubt, the State is the owner of the State land, but as is held by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharda Devi (supra) that the
Government, not being a person interested within the meaning of
Section 3(b) of the Act, has no right to compensation payable for
the land owned and possessed by it. To be precise, the State land
cannot be made subject matter of acquisition at the instance of and
for the benefit of the Government. Otherwise also, the award
passed by the Collector Land Acquisition, Gool in the instant
case has become final and the respondents have not challenged
the same. It, thus, does not lie in the mouth of the respondents
to say that the appellants, though named in the apportionment
statement to receive the compensation, should be denied the
compensation on the ground that they are not the owner of the
land acquired, but were only found to be in cultivating
possession.
7 This Court considered similar question in case titled 'Krishana
vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors' (OWP No.
1101/2016) and, after relying upon several judgments of this Court
as well as the Apex Court, concluded that the person in possession
of the land is a 'person interested' and entitled to compensation
of the acquired land as per the final award, even though he
may not be owner of the property and the land is a State land.
It is not in dispute that the appellants have been in long
continuous possession of the land and have, therefore, acquired
sufficient interest in the land to claim compensation.
8 For facility of reference, the observations of this Court in
paragraph 22 of the judgment rendered in the case of Krishana
(supra) are reproduced hereunder:
"This is exactly the position in the present case, where while
making the award, the Collector itself determined the
compensation in respect of the aforesaid State land recognizing
the tenancy/possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the
compensation that has been determined under the award in
respect of the land in question is for the person interested
namely, the petitioner. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the
petitioner is the person interested entitled to the compensation of
the acquired land as per the final award dated 20.03.2012 to the
tune of Rs. 85,388/-, Even though he may not be the owner of the
property and the land is that of the State simply on the basis even
though he may not be the owner of the property and the land is
that of the State simply on the basis of his long possession which
is not in dispute".
(emphasis added)
8. It is worthwhile to mention here that the aforesaid judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court but the SLP was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2024. In this case
also, the respondent No.3 has assessed the compensation payable to the
original petitioner and the award has not been challenged by the U.T Of
J&K on the ground that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of land and
as such, is not entitled to any compensation. In fact, there is admission on
the part of the respondents that the original petitioner was in illegal
possession of the land acquired by the respondents and the revenue record
placed on record by the petitioner establishes the long possession of the
petitioner. Once the award is not challenged and the same has attained
finality, the petitioners cannot be denied the compensation assessed by no
one else but the Collector.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing the
respondent No.3 to release the compensation in favour of the petitioner(s)
assessed by the respondent No.3, within the period of 8 weeks, failing
which the petitioner(s) shall be entitled to interest @ 6 percent per annum
from the date of filing of the petition till the actual compensation is paid to
the petitioner(s).
10. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
27.02.2025
Neha-II
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
