Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 46 (JK)

RAJESHWAR SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

2017-02-03

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. By nature of the relief sought for and based on the pleadings in the writ petition, the writ petition itself can be taken up for final disposal. 2. Admit. 3. Issue post admission notice. Mr. Ehsan Mirza, learned Deputy Advocate General waives notice on behalf of respondents. 4. The relief sought for by the petitioners is as under : "Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of J&K for issuance of the command in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to release the compensation of the land amounting to Rs. 6,07,225/- with interest @ 9 % per annum, measuring 19 kanals 1 marla falling under Khasra No. 606/92 situated at Rakh Amb Tali, Tehsil and District Samba acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the award has been passed on 20.03.1998 under No. LA/13/95 by the Collector Land Acquisition (Additional Deputy Commissioner) Jammu. Or issuance of any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 5. Petitioners, nine in number, pleaded the following facts that land measuring 167 kanals and 6 marlas situated at Rakh Amb Tali, Tehsil Samba was required for establishment of Growth Centre Samba under plan 217/91, dated 06.11.1991 based on indent placed by the Commissioner/Secretary to Industries and Commerce Department vide No. 217/91, dated 06.11.1995. It is further pleaded that Tehsildar Samba issued a notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1990, dated 24.02.1994 calling upon the land owners/interested persons to file their objections. It is stated that the land owners did not file their objections within the stipulated period and the case was thereafter made over to Administrative Department (Revenue) in file No. 1163/67/LA, dated 30.03.1996 for issuance of notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and with further direction under Section 7 to the Collector to take possession for the land in question. The petitioner refers to various proceedings taken under Land Acquisition Act. In terms of the award passed by the Collector Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu a sum of Rs.60,07,725/- was granted forming Annexure-A to the writ petition. 6. The petitioner refers to various proceedings taken under Land Acquisition Act. In terms of the award passed by the Collector Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu a sum of Rs.60,07,725/- was granted forming Annexure-A to the writ petition. 6. According to the petitioner, award was passed in favour of Vikram Singh, who expired and now his five daughters are entitled to compensation as owners and legal heirs in respect of the land falling under Khasra No. 606/92. It is stated that Gandharab Singh S/o Damool Singh is also co-owner. 7. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons and legal heirs of Gandharab Singh and Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the daughters of Gandharab Singh. It is stated that Gandharab Singh expired in the year 2008 and Vikram Singh expired in 1965. In the revenue records, names Petitioner Nos. 5 to 9 were not recorded as they were ladies and they did not approach the revenue authorities for such endorsement. 8. They, however, noticed that the name of one Bua Ditta S/o Meenu alias Mehul Singh was entered in the register after coming into force the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, but his claim was however, dismissed. 9. The petitioners' short grievance is that the money granted in terms of the award has not been paid to petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 after the death of their father in the year 2008. The legal heirs of Vikram Singh also did not get the award amount. The award amount is in the custody of respondent No. 2-Collector Additional Deputy Commissioner Samba. In short, the grievance of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the land under acquisition and until date compensation has not been paid over to the lawful owners by the official respondents. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed. 10. As annexures to the writ petition, documents relating to acquisition proceedings have been filed. On record there appears to be no specific claim by the legal heirs to respondent No. 2 as to their right to seek compensation payable to Vikram Singh and Gandharab Singh. Since there is no specific claim by the petitioners to respondent No. 2, the authority cannot be found fault. 11. Sh. On record there appears to be no specific claim by the legal heirs to respondent No. 2 as to their right to seek compensation payable to Vikram Singh and Gandharab Singh. Since there is no specific claim by the petitioners to respondent No. 2, the authority cannot be found fault. 11. Sh. Ehsan Mirza, learned Deputy Advocate General states that at the first instance petitioner should approach respondent No. 2 by making a proper claim along with supporting document as they have done so in the writ petition. If their claim is justified the authorities will accord consideration based on the record. 12. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make specific claim to respondent No. 2 including all relevant legal documents that may be relied upon for the purpose of claiming compensation. Such claim to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The authority within six weeks thereafter may accord consideration to the claim of petitioners, it is also made clear that if any other person may be affected by such claim and proceedings, it is necessary that the authority should put the said person to notice so as to avoid allegations of violation of principles of natural justice. 13. The writ petition is disposed of as above.