Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 108 (JK)

Ab. Majeed Sheikh v. State of J&K

2017-03-02

R.SUDHAKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : R. SUDHAKAR, J. 1. Petitioner is the owner of land under Khasra No. 486 min situated at village Sangran, District Anantnag. It is an orchard land. The Power Development Department, in order to provide transmission line namely 132 KV CST, entered into the lands of the petitioner as also his neighbor and put up structure for execution of this project. The standing trees came below the transmission line and had to be removed. The owners are, as such, entitled to the compensation for the aforesaid trees. In the first instance, the petitioner's land over which transmission line was going affected 26 trees, amongst which 16 are Walnut trees, 2 Apple trees, 3 Pear trees, 4 Apricot trees, and 1 Cherry trees based on the Certificate, issued by Chief Horticulture Officer, Anantnag. According to the petitioner, identification of the standing trees was done at his back and compensation of Rs.1,56,108/- was determined but the petitioner refused to receive the said amount. This assessment was made in the year 2007 and same was intimated to the petitioner who refused to receive the amount. The petitioner enquired from his neighbor Mohammad Jabbar Sheikh S/o. Ghulam Ahmad Sheikh R/o Sangran, whose land also came below the transmission line and was granted compensation for the trees that were removed. Analyzing the compensation granted to the said Mohammad Jabbar Sheikh, the petitioner realized that he has been unfairly treated and assessment of compensation in his favour has been wrongly done. It is stated that the authority acted in an arbitrary and discriminating manner in respect of the petitioner as against his neighbor who was given higher compensation. 2. Petitioner made further enquiry and sought an advice from Chief Horticulture Officer, Anantnag, to determine the compensation. On the direction issued by Dy. Commissioner, Anantnag, the Chief Horticulture, Officer, Anantnag visited the spot and assessed the value of trees, i.e., Annexure "A" dated 03.08.2009. 3. The valuation in relation to the trees removed from the field of Mohammad Jabbar Sheikh is Annexure "E". It is pleaded that petitioner approached the Power Development Department for higher compensation for the removed trees. This was denied, forcing the petitioner to file the present writ petition for just compensation based on fair treatment to neighbor. 4. 3. The valuation in relation to the trees removed from the field of Mohammad Jabbar Sheikh is Annexure "E". It is pleaded that petitioner approached the Power Development Department for higher compensation for the removed trees. This was denied, forcing the petitioner to file the present writ petition for just compensation based on fair treatment to neighbor. 4. In regard to the unfair treatment the authority enquired the basis on which the assessment was made in respect of the trees belonging to petitioner's neighbor as alleged by the petitioner. Petitioner further states that on his request, Dy. Commissioner, Anantnag called upon the Chief Horticulture Officer to make another assessment. It is further pleaded that Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to make the verification. On that basis, a fresh report for enhanced compensation was made. The claim further was not accepted by the respondents as not authorized and self serving. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs: a. By way of writ of mandamus, the respondents (Power Development Department) be directed to release and pay an amount of Rs. 5,29,000/- as net amount of compensation on account of acquiring fruit bearing trees of the petitioner falling under Khasra No. 486 min, village Sangran, on account of alignment of 132 KV CSTL of Railway crossing at Sangran, Tehsil Dooru. b. By way of writ of mandamus, the respondents be directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the net amount of compensation determined @ 6% for the first year and thereafter @ 10% till the compensation is paid. 5. Mr. R.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently opposed the writ petition, stating that second valuation is not correct. It is not a legally sustainable inquiry and the particulars, which are given therein, are incorrect. Therefore, the report cannot be accepted and the said claim for enhancement of compensation based on the subsequent report is denied in its totality. Therefore, it is reiterated from the stand taken by Power Development Department that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation to a sum of Rs. 1,56,108/- only and nothing more. He further states that the inquiry was conducted as to whether the subsequent report enhancing the value has got any legal basis or duly authorized and acceptable is awaited. Hence the issue is still at large. 6. 1,56,108/- only and nothing more. He further states that the inquiry was conducted as to whether the subsequent report enhancing the value has got any legal basis or duly authorized and acceptable is awaited. Hence the issue is still at large. 6. The facts pleaded by the petitioner are disputed by the Power Development Department in entirety. Therefore, no adjudication can be made by this Court on facts, which are disputed. However, if the petitioner is able to justify his claim before Chief Engineer, Power Development Department with the certificate of the Chief Horticulture Officer on valuation, which is stated to be based on the direction issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Anantnag, then it can be accorded consideration. 7. The petitioner also has to prove that the record relied upon by him determining the compensation in respect of Mohammad Jabbar Sheikh is genuine and valid. 8. The authority on their part can also verify from their records and take a decision as to the correct number of trees on site. The grant compensation should be without discrimination whether it is the petitioner or any other. 9. If the trees which were removed from petitioner's land as also his neighbor's land are almost identical in the initial assessment then the value for compensation should be without discrimination. The order granting compensation should contain reasons. The petitioners should be also to understand the basis of the valuation in clear terms. 10. Keeping the above in mind, the petitioner is given an opportunity to approach the Chief Engineer, Power Development Department with all relevant records on 20th March, 2017 and shall submit all relevant records. The authority will verify the compensation that has been granted to petitioner's and his neighbor. A reasoned order to be passed so that facts can be clear and petitioner feels that he has been fairly treated by the authority. The authority to decide expeditiously. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Disposed off.