[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 12.02.2026 vs Phunchok Dorjey And Others on 19 February, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:442-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No: LPAOW No. 95/2017
IA No. 1/2017
Reserved on: 12.02.2026
Pronounced on:19.02.2026
Uploaded on: 19.02.2026
Whether the operative part or
full Judgment is pronounced : Full
State of J&K and another
..... Appellant(s).....
Through: Mr. Rohan Nanda, CGSC.
Vs
Phunchok Dorjey and others
..... Respondent(s)...
Through: Mr. P.N.Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
J.A.Hamal, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
PER OSWAL-J
1. The appellants are aggrieved of the judgment dated 15.05.2017
rendered by the learned writ Court in OWP No.479/2014 whereby
Order No. 532-Rev of 2014 dated 06.02.2014 passed by the appellant
No.2 by virtue of which the Mutations attested in favour of 2026:JKLHC-JMU:442-DB
the
respondents were set aside, and the appellants were directed to release
the compensation as has already been assessed in favour of the
respondents, within a period of two months from the date of passing
of the order.
2. The appellants have assailed the order dated 15.05.2017 on the
grounds inter alia that the learned writ Court has not rightly
considered the contentions of the appellants that the land regarding
which the Mutations attested in favour of the respondents were
cancelled, was Kahcharai land, therefore, the Mutations could not
have been attested in favour of the respondents, and further that it was
brought to the notice of the learned writ Court that the appellants
herein were not arrayed as respondents in OWP No.734/2007 and
LPAOW No. 61/2019, and as such, the orders passed in the aforesaid
writ petition and LPA were not binding upon the appellants. It is also
contended that in OWP No.428/2013, which was filed before the
Srinagar Wing of this Court, a specific stand was taken by the
appellants regarding the land being Kahcharai, and the Court directed
the respondents therein to complete the entire process of acquisition
and make compensation whatever due to the claimants, strictly in
accordance with the law. Precisely, the contention of the appellants is
that the Mutations attested in favour of the respondents could not have
been attested as the land in question was Kahcharai land, and as such
order dated 16.02.2014 was rightly passed.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:442-DB
3. Mr. Rohan Nanda, learned CGSC, has submitted that the Court's
directive in OWP No. 428/2013 mandated the compensation for 'due
claimants', a category that does not automatically include the
respondents. He maintained that since the subject land is classified as
Kahcharai, any Mutation attested in favour of the private individuals
was inherently invalid. Therefore, the Collector acted within his
authority by quashing these erroneous entries through the order dated
06.02.2014 to protect the interests of the State.
4. Per contra, Mr. P. N. Raina, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents, has submitted that the respondents have cultivated the
land for an extended period and that the Mutations were duly attested
in their favour under Eilan No. 38 dated 7th Sawan, 1989. Learned
Senior counsel has vehemently argued that since the matter attained
finality by virtue of order passed by the learned Writ Court in OWP
No. 734/2007, the appellants had no grounds to re-examine the
validity of the Mutations, especially when the Army authorities had
already taken the possession from the respondents following
compensation negotiations. Furthermore, learned Senior counsel
referred to order dated 06.02.2014 to submit that appellant No. 2 has
admitted that the respondents permitted the Army to take possession
after agreeing to a negotiated rate of ₹60,000/- per kanal. Given this
categorical admission of possession, Mr. Raina, learned Senior
counsel has contended that it was not legally open to the appellant No.
2 to subsequently quash the Mutations.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:442-DB
6. A perusal of the order dated 06.02.2014 reveals that appellant No. 2
has quashed the Mutations pertaining to land measuring 434 Kanals
and 08 Marlas, comprising Khasra Nos. 2787, 2782, 2337, 2775,
2780, 2783 and 2820, situated at village Spituk, District Leh, on the
ground that the said Mutations had been wrongly attested in respect of
Kahcharai land, i.e., State land.
7. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the appellants afforded
the respondents, being beneficiaries under the Mutations, any
opportunity of hearing prior to the issuance of the cancellation order
dated 06.02.2014. Such omission is in clear derogation of the
principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the validity of the original
attestation under Eilan No. 38 (7th Sawan, 1989) has not been put in
issue and remains undisputed.
8. The record indicates that in an earlier round of litigation initiated by
several respondents herein through the medium of OWP No.
734/2007, the learned Writ Court disposed of the petition vide an
order dated 15.09.2009. The learned Writ Court directed the
respondents therein to complete the acquisition process and remit
compensation to the petitioners therein within three months of
receiving a copy of the order.
9. The Union of India assailed the order dated 15.09.2009 in LPAOW
No. 61/2009. On 16.04.2012, a Coordinate Bench of this Court
disposed of the appeal by consent of both parties. The Bench granted
the appellants an additional six months' time from the date of the
order to complete the acquisition process and pay the compensation
whatever due to the respondents, strictly in accordance with the law.
10.The appellants' claim of being 'non-parties' to the earlier litigation2026:JKLHC-JMU:442-DB
is
contradicted by the record. Both the State of J&K and the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of the Ladakh Hill Development Council,
Leh, were formally impleaded as respondents in OWP No. 734/2007.
Since the CEO of the Council is the Deputy Commissioner of Leh
himself, the appellants cannot now claim ignorance of those
proceedings. Consequently, this contention is meritless and must be
rejected.
11.In OWP No. 428/2013, filed before the Srinagar Wing of this Court,
the appellants contended that the disputed land was village common
land (Kahcharai) and thus could not be selectively mutated in favour
of individual villagers. This writ petition was disposed of by an order
dated 19.12.2013, in which the official respondents were directed to
complete the acquisition process and pay any compensation due to the
claimants, strictly in accordance with the law.
12.Surprisingly, rather than complying with the directions issued in OWP
No. 428/2013 and OWP No. 734/2007, appellant No. 2 proceeded to
cancel the Mutations without notice to the respondents. Once the
orders dated 15.09.2009 in OWP No. 734/2007 and 16.04.2012 in
LPAOW No. 61/2009 attained finality, it was no longer legally
permissible for appellant No. 2 to unilaterally quash the Mutations.
Such action improperly deprived the respondents of their accrued
right to compensation, a right that had already crystallized following
formal negotiations with the Army authorities
13.We have examined the judgment rendered by the learned Writ Court
and find that the matter has been rightly appreciated and correctly
adjudicated. We do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with2026:JKLHC-JMU:442-DB
or
show indulgence in the present case. The appeal, being misconceived,
is accordingly dismissed along with connected CM(s), if any.
(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu
19.02.2026
Madan Verma-Secy
Whether order is speaking? Yes.
Whether order is reportable? Yes.
