Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 408 (JK)

Mohammad Maqbool Mir v. Union Territory of J&K

2021-08-12

PANKAJ MITHAL, SANJAY DHAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N. A. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. D. C. Raina, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Mir Suhail, AAG and Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA. 2. The petitioner by means of this petition wants a direction to be issued commanding the respondents to pay proper and suitable compensation as per market value to the petitioners for their land situate at Panzgam, Kupwara, and to process the case of the petitioner no.5 for appointment in the Government Department. 3. The petitioners allege that the possession of their land was taken over for the construction of Panchayat Ghar without paying compensation with the understanding that they will appoint one of them in the department on substantive basis. The respondents appointed only petitioner no.1 vide order dated 04.07.1983 but on temporary basis. The request of the petitioners for regularisation of his services have fallen to deaf ears. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners now want that either son of the petitioner no.1 may be granted a job or the petitioners be paid adequate compensation for the acquired land. 4. The petitioners have not mentioned any date on which the land was acquired or the date on which the possession was taken over by the respondents. The pleadings indicate that petitioner no.1 was given employment on 04.07.1983, it means that the land must have been acquired prior to that. In respect of the land taken by the respondents way back in the year 1983 or before, the petitioners have approached this Court by means of this writ petition in the year 2020. This inordinate delay in filing the writ petition is totally unexplained and cannot be countenanced for. 5. In view of the above, the petitioners are trying to make stale case which is virtually dead with the passage of time. Moreover, the petitioner No.1 having accepted the employment, may be on temporary basis, cannot turn around and ask for employment for his son i.e., petitioner no.5. 6. The petitioners themselves state that the land was given by them with the clear assurance that petitioner no.1 will be appointed. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the petitioners’ land was so given for the purposes of constructing a Panchayat Ghar or there was any such assurance as alleged by the petitioners. 6. The petitioners themselves state that the land was given by them with the clear assurance that petitioner no.1 will be appointed. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the petitioners’ land was so given for the purposes of constructing a Panchayat Ghar or there was any such assurance as alleged by the petitioners. The only fact on record is that petitioner no.1 was temporarily appointed on 04.07.1983 and he continued till reaching the age of superannuation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner no.1 though engaged temporarily but was never paid any remuneration. This cannot be perse accepted and cannot be a matter of enquiry or adjudication in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has not claimed salary/ remuneration since 1983 till he attained the age of 58 years and it is after a long distance of time that he has woke up from slumber and has started claiming employment for his son alleging that he has not been paid remuneration. 8. It may be noted that petitioner no.1 on the date of filing of writ petition was aged 73 years so are the other petitioners as mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition. The age of the petitioner no.5 for whom the employment is sought is not mentioned. 9. It is trite to mention here that even under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, if any land is acquired, the land holders are only entitled to fair compensation and nothing more. There is no question of any employment under the provisions of the said Act. 10. This apart, since there is nothing on record to establish that the land of the petitioner was acquired in any manner and any assurance was extended to them for giving employment, we do not deem it fit and proper to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.