Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 544 (JK)

Ghulam Rasool v. State

2017-08-04

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to release the already assessed and admitted compensation by them in favour of the petitioners. The compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,07,200/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seven Thousands and Two Hundred) in favour of the petitioners alongwith interest @ 18% w.e.f. the date it has become due till its actual realization. The amount of compensation is claimed with respect to the fruit bearing trees, which are stated to have come under the alignment of widening of road from Kandi to Budhal. 2. The petitioners submit that the compensation with regard to fruit bearing trees was duly assessed by the Chief Horticulture Officer, Rajouri on the directions of District Development Commissioner, Rajouri and the Collector Land Acquisition Defense Poonch-Rajouri Headquarter, Rajouri, but the same has not been deposited by the respondent No. 3 and consequently released in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have also drawn parity with the order passed in identical petition, i.e., OWP No. 216/2016 dated 19th February, 2016 and submit that the case of the petitioners is identical to the case disposed of by this Court on 19th February, 2016. As such, the similar directions as were passed in the aforesaid matter would take care of their grievance projected in this petition. 3. In the light of the submissions made, this writ petition is disposed of without issuing formal notice to the respondents by directing respondent No. 3 to deposit the admitted amount of compensation, as assessed by the Chief Horticulture Officer, Rajouri with regard to the fruit bearing trees, which have come under the alignment of the road from Kandi to Budhal and duly authenticated by the Collector Land Acquisition, Defense Poonch-Rajouri Headquarter, Rajouri before respondent No. 2 within a period of four weeks, if there is no legal impediment. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 would disburse/release the aforesaid amount in favour of the petitioners after completing usual formalities and of course following due process of law. 4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith connected MP(s).