Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 302 (JK)

Ab. Rashid Sofi v. State

2014-07-15

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2014
1. Following reliefs are sought in this writ petition: "(A) Mandamus commanding the respondents to make the compensation of the land acquired and utilized by the State under Development Plan and assess the compensation u/s 23 of L.A. Act with solatium and interest @ 12%. (B) Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the withheld amount/assessed amount of compensation with solatium and interest on applicable rates and report compliance in the Court within a period of one month. (C) Mandamus commanding the respondents to produce the records pertaining the acquisition of land and allotment of shops made thereafter by Municipal Committee on the lands maintained as Fire gaps in the shopping line main Adda Bandipora." 2. The Civil Court, (Sub Judge Bandipora), has passed the judgement and decree in favour of the petitioners in respect of land, which is subject matter of this writ petition. The decree has been passed on 20th December, 2012. The Suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed and defendants have been directed to pay compensation to the plaintiff s at the prevalent market rate for the land falling under Survey Nos. 349, 350, 351 and 336 measuring 01 kanal and 7 marlas situated at main market Bandipora. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this writ petition is filed for the reason that the respondents are not depositing the decretal amount and the Collector Land Acquisition has sent a communication to the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Kashmir, Srinagar on 02-05-2014 asking him either to contest the case or to deposit the compensation amount of the land as per prevalent market rates in the Office of the Collector for its disbursement amongst the concerned land owners. Learned counsel submitted that the Collector ought not have asked the said Director to contest the case when the decree has already been passed. Learned counsel further submitted that the Collector, instead of determining the prevalent market rate of the land in terms of section 23 of the State Land Acquisition Act and passing of Award, has written the communication. 4. The communication does not, in any manner whatsoever, affect the rights of the petitioners, which have accrued to them from the decree dated 20th December, 2012. Even same has not been challenged in the writ petition and rightly so because it does not affect their rights. 5. 4. The communication does not, in any manner whatsoever, affect the rights of the petitioners, which have accrued to them from the decree dated 20th December, 2012. Even same has not been challenged in the writ petition and rightly so because it does not affect their rights. 5. The decree dated 20th December, 2012 is a mandatory decree directing the defendants to pay compensation to the plaintiffs at the prevalent market rate. In the face of the decree, the Collector, in law, is not required to pass any Award in terms of State Land Acquisition Act. The decree, if it is not implemented till date, the petitioner have the option to seek its execution before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is in the execution of the decree that the issue of prevalent market rate can be settled. 6. For the above stated reasons, this writ petition is held to be not maintainable and is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected CMPs. However, petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for execution of the decree and the Court, if approached, shall decide the Execution Petition in accordance with law with reasonable dispatch, preferably, within the period of three months from the date same is filed. 7. Disposed of along with CMPs.