Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Nasreena Rashid Banday vs Govt. Of J&K And Others on 23 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 13.05.2025
Pronounced on:23.05.2025
CM(M) No.233/2024
NASREENA RASHID BANDAY ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate.
Vs.
GOVT. OF J&K AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - None for R1 to R4.
Mr. J. H. Reshi, Advocate-for R5 to R8
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition,
has challenged order dated 29th June, 2024, passed by the
learned Principal District Judge, Pulwama, (hereinafter
referred to as "the Reference Court"), whereby, during the
pendency of the reference made by the Collector to the
aforesaid Court, the deposited amount of compensation has
been released in favour of respondents No.5 to 7 as also in
favour of the petitioner.
2) It appears that two separate writ petitions came to be
filed by the petitioner and private respondents No.5 to 7
before this Court. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner
herein bearing WP(C) No.1542/2022, she had sought a
direction upon the Collector, Land Acquisition, Pulwama
(respondent No.3 herein) to release compensation in respect
of land measuring 03 kanals and 10 marlas under Khasra
No.3335/2603 situated in Mouza Awantipora Tral, which
she claims to have purchased from respondent No.8 by
virtue of sale deed dated 28th June, 2016 registered on 29th
June, 2016.
3) In the writ petition filed by private respondents No.5 to
7 bearing WP(C) No.2055/2022, a direction was sought upon
respondent No.3 herein to refer the matter to District Judge,
Pulwama, in terms of Section 18 read with Section 31 of the
J&K Land Acquisition Act for determination of compensation
and area of the acquired land of the petitioners therein
(respondents No.5 to 7 herein) for which compensation is
payable to them under law. They also sought a direction
upon the Collector to deposit the undisbursed amount of
compensation of Rs.69,58,873/ in respect of the acquired
land measuring 15 kanals and 13 marlas under Khasra
No.3819/3345/2603 and 3671/335/2603 situated at
Awantipora as also to deposit Rs.7,52,412/ on account of
compensation in respect of trees/plants with the Court of
Principal District Judge, Pulwama, along with statutory
interest. It is pertinent to mention here that the land, which
was subject matter of the aforesaid two writ petitions was
acquired for establishment of All India Institute of Medical
Sciences and the Collector Land Acquisition made an award
in respect of the acquired land in which name of the
petitioner did not figure.
4) Both the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by
this Court vide judgment dated 25.08.2023, with the
following directions:
(I) Petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday shall be at liberty to file an
application before the respondent Collector seeking reference
of the dispute relating to her entitlement/ apportionment in the
compensation assessed in terms of Section 31 of the J&K Land
Acquisition Act and in case any such reference is sought, the
same shall be forwarded by the Collector to the Principal
District Judge, Pulwama, for adjudication on merits in
accordance with law.
(II) The writ petitioners of WP(C) No.2055/2022 are at liberty to
approach the respondent Collector Land Acquisition to seek
reference under Section 18 read with Section 31 of the Act and
in case any such reference is sought, the same shall be
forwarded to the Principal District Judge, Pulwama, for
adjudication on merits in accordance with law.
(III) The respondent Collector Land Acquisition shall deposit the
undisbursed compensation along with interest with the
Reference Court.
5) It seems that pursuant to the aforesaid directions of
this Court, the Collector made reference to the Reference
Court and the undisbursed amount of compensation was
also deposited with the said Court. It also appears that two
applications came to be filed before the Reference Court for
release of award amount that was deposited by the Collector
before the said Court. One application was filed by the
private respondents seeking release of compensation
amount of Rs.59,08,122/ in their favour and the other
application was filed by the petitioner for release of
compensation with regard to land measuring 03 kanals and
10 marlas, which according to her was purchased by her
from respondent No.8. Both these applications came to be
decided by the learned Reference Court in terms of the
impugned order dated 29.06.2023, whereby the deposited
sum to the extent of entitlement of private respondents No.5
to 7 has been released in their favour whereas the share of
private respondent No.8 has not been released in his favour.
The share of private respondent No.8 has been released in
favour of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that
compensation to the extent of only 11.5 marlas of land has
been directed to be released in favour of the petitioner, who
claims to be owner of land measuring 03 kanals 10 marlas
out of the acquired land.
6) Aggrieved of the aforesaid order passed by the learned
Reference Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition
on the grounds that it was not open to the learned Reference
Court to release compensation amount in favour of private
respondents No.5 to 7 because the issue regarding
entitlement of the petitioner is yet to be determined which
can be done only after trial of the case. It has been contended
that by allowing the private respondents No.5 to 7 to get
whole of the deposited amount of compensation released in
their favour, a grave prejudice has been caused to the rights
of the petitioner. It has been contended that since the
petitioner is owner of land measuring 03 kanals 10 marlas,
as such, she is entitled to compensation for whole of this
land and not in respect of 11.5 marlas only, as has been
done by the learned Reference Court. It has been contended
that without deciding the reference in accordance with law,
it was not open to the learned Reference Court to release the
amount of compensation in favour of private respondents
No.5 to 7.
7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
8) If we have a look at the impugned order passed by the
learned Reference Court, it comes to the fore that the
Collector has found private respondents entitled to
compensation only in respect of land measuring 04 kanals
and 17 marlas and not in respect of land measuring 15
kanals and 13 marlas, which they are claiming by virtue of
the reference made at their behest. It appears that out of 04
kanals and 17 marlas of land belonging to the private
respondents, their entitlement on pro-rata basis has been
found to be 01 kanal and 8.5 marlas each in favour of
respondents No.5 to 7 and 11.5 marlas in favour of
respondent No.8, meaning thereby that the Collector has
deposited the compensation in respect of the land belonging
to private respondents No.5 to 8 in the aforesaid ratio before
the learned Reference Court. The petitioner, who claims her
entitlement to the compensation through respondent No.8,
at this stage is, therefore, entitled to receive compensation
which has been deposited in respect of the land falling to the
share of respondent No.8 only.
9) The question whether private respondents No.5 to 8 are
entitled to compensation for whole of the land measuring 15
kanals and 13 marlas is subject matter of determination
before the learned Reference Court in the reference made at
the behest of respondents No.5 to 8. If their reference is
accepted and they are held entitled to compensation for
entire chunk of land measuring 15 kanals and 13 marlas,
obviously the petitioner herein would get compensation in
respect of whole of the land measuring 03 kanals and 10
marlas, which she has purchased from respondent No.8 and
in case the reference of respondents No.5 to 8 is not
accepted, the petitioner cannot claim more than what has
been assessed by the Collector in favour of respondent No.8,
through whom she claims her rights.
10) It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the learned
Reference Court has released the amount of compensation
that was earmarked for respondent No.8 and has not
released the amount of compensation for whole of the land
measuring 03 kanals and 10 marlas, which the petitioner
had purchased from respondent No.8. The petitioner cannot
claim compensation which has been assessed by the
Collector in respect of portion of the acquired land which fell
to the share of respondents No.5 to 7. Her claim to
compensation is restricted to the entitlement of respondent
No.8, from whom she has purchased a portion of the
acquired land. Thus, she cannot claim that the share of
compensation earmarked for respondents No.5 to 7 should
be put on hold till the reference is decided by the learned
Reference Court. the contention of the petitioner is,
therefore, without any substance.
11) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned
Reference Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed
accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall cease to be in
operation.
12) No order as to costs.
13) A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned
Reference Court for information.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar,
23.05.2025
"Bhat Altaf"
Whether the judgment is reportable: YES
