Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 468 (JK)

Pandav Gupta v. Union Territory of J. and K.

2020-09-08

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL

body2020
ORDER : Vinod Chatterji Koul, J. 1. The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to release the compensation assessed and deposited by respondent No. 4 on account of rental compensation of the land owned by petitioner measuring 10 kanal 3 marla falling under Khasra No. 291 situated at village Manda, Akhnoor under the possession of the respondent No. 4 acquired under Requisition and Acquisition, Act 1985. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land falling under Khasra No. 291 min measuring 10 kanal 3 marla situated at village Manda, Tehsil Akhnoor which is under the occupation of Ministry of Defence and respondent No. 4 for defence purpose. The land was requisitioned for the occupation of respondent no 4, in the year 1948 along with other landholders whose land was acquired for defence purpose and rental compensation was agreed to be paid. The petitioner had been receiving the rental compensation along with other landholders through Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the rental compensation was revised all over the union territory, but not in the case of the petitioner which made constrained him to file the writ petition bearing OWP No. 1305/2010, before this High Court for direction to the respondents to enhance the rental compensation at par with similarly situated landowners whose land is under the occupation of the respondent No. 4. The rental compensation was enhanced from time to time since 1993, the petitioner was deprived the payment of rental compensation at the enhanced rate as revised by SRO 443 dated 01.10.1999, with effect from 16.02.1998 thereafter revised vide SRO 325 dated 02.02.2005, w.e.f. 16.02.2003. The petitioner and other landholders applied for payment of revised rate of rental compensation for the land so taken over by the defence authorities, but his claim was not considered. It is stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 18.05.2018, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner at par with the decision in OWP No. 614/2006. It is stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 18.05.2018, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner at par with the decision in OWP No. 614/2006. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3 sought a report with respect to the ownership right and acquaintance roll in which the status of the land acquired was given and the rate of rental compensation payable to the petitioner and other owners of the land was submitted with effect from 01.09.1988 to 31.03.2003 and the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the compensation. The acquaintance roll was prepared indicating the fact that the petitioner is entitled for rent and there is no stay from any court with respect to the payment of compensation to the petitioner. Despite opportunity, Mr. S.S. Sr. AAG has not filed objections. 4. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI submits that there is no need to file objections on behalf of the Union of India, because they have already deposited the rental compensation of the land with the respondents. 5. Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG submitted that respondents 2 and 3 will consider the claim made by the petitioner for release of rental compensation of the land in accordance with rules and regulations governing the subject. 6. Mr. G.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that he would be satisfied in case direction is given to respondents 2 and 3 to dispose of the claim of the petitioner made in this writ petition for the release of enhanced/arrears of the rental compensation within a reasonable time. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, after Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG made the statement that respondents will consider the claim for release of rental compensation that he would be satisfied in case respondents are directed to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to the payment of rental compensation as made in this writ petition in accordance with rules and regulations within reasonable time, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage. 8. 8. Therefore, for the reasons stated above and in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents more particularly respondents 2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the subject by passing a speaking order within a period of one month from the date copy of the writ petition as well as copy of this order is served upon them by the petitioner. 9. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.