Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 706 (JK)

Krishna Devi v. Collector Land Acquisition

2022-12-15

RAHUL BHARTI

body2022
JUDGMENT Rahul Bharti, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Vide a land acquisition award no. 129-33/Acq. Dated 09.06.2004, the Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban came forward with acquisition of 204.11 kanals of land in village Dharmoind tehsil Ramban for defence related public purpose which was construction of a Defence Complex. 2. Some of the khasra numbers coming under the land acquisition in terms of the award were khasra no. 244 (04 kanals 02 marlas), khasra no. 245 (03 kanals 17 marlas) and khasra no. 246 (10 kanals 16 marlas) with respect to which claim of ownership and compensation is said to be that of the appellant herein. In the land acquisition award referred above the assessment of compensation for the land bearing Gair Mumkin nature was Rs. 12,000/- whereas for the land bearing nature Warhal Changi was Rs. 42,000/-. 3. The appellant whose land falling in khasra no. 244 (9.2 kanals), khasra no. 245 (3.17 kanals) and khasra no. 246 (10.16 kanals) in village Dharmoind, Ramban was claim to have fallen in the acquisition in terms of the aforesaid award, felt dissatisfied with a quantum of compensation offer aforesaid land assessed at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per kanals being of the nature Gair Mumkin. 4. From this stage onwards, the state of facts at the end of the appellant and that of Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban became hazy in the sense that the appellant claimed that she came to make an application before the Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban for making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, Svt., 1990 to the Court of District Judge, Ramban because of the appellant objections to the rate of compensation assessed for the acquisition of her land. 5. Against the said award dated 09.06.2014, the mode for seeking reference for the aggrieved land owners which in the present case the appellant was to have approached the Collector concerned with an application herein the objections of the appellant as to the quantum of compensation so awarded qua her land in terms of the said award and their upon seeking from the Collector concerned reference of the matter to the Court of District Judge of the concerned district. For doing this the period of limitation also mandated the timeline for which thus the appellant was supposed to have asked for the reference of dispute to the Principal District Judge, Ramban by the Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban. 6. Without anything on record, the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban came to take cognizance of application filed by the appellant herself which came to be diarized as reference no. 03 of 2004 titled 'Krishna Devi vs. Collector Land Acquisition'. 7. It is not gatherable from the record of the case as to how without there being any reference generated by the Collector Land Acquisition at the instance of the appellant, the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban came to act upon the application of the appellant straightway by treating it as if the same was a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, Svt., 1990. 8. It is during the pendency of this very proceedings that the Collector Land Acquisition came forward acting upon an application made by the appellant on 16.05.2005 as a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the proceedings on this reference continued by reference to the original proceedings which had commenced on 07.12.2004 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban. 9. In addition to the appellant's application, three other land owners had also similarly approached the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban with a direct application which came to be entertained on file no. 2/Reference by the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban against the same very award. 10. Thus the said two purported references i.e. one self-generated by appellant herein on file no. 3/Reference and the other generated by Dharam Singh and others on file no. 2/Reference against the same very award came to be clubbed for disposal by the Principal District Judge, Ramban in terms of its order dated 27.09.2007. 11. Said two references came to be disposed of by the common judgment dated 01.07.2008 against which the present appellant has come forward in appeal before this court. In its judgment dated 01.07.2008, the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban held the reference to be barred by limitation by reckoning the reference filed on 16.05.2005 by the Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban. 12. In its judgment dated 01.07.2008, the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban held the reference to be barred by limitation by reckoning the reference filed on 16.05.2005 by the Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban. 12. This Court would have given benefit of doubt in the matter to the appellant but for the fact that the appellant has not come forward to this Court or in fact before the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban with clean hands and mind as the appellant in order to wriggle out of the fact that the time limit for making the reference was allowed to expire without any act of application on the part of the appellant being made to the Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban for reference of the dispute the appellant try to concocted a story that she had made an application on 03.09.2004 before the Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban and that her application before the Principal District Judge, Ramban on 07.12.2004 was in continuation of that application. 13. The appellant has pleaded that she has not aware of passing of the award as it was ex-parte and without knowledge of the appellant and it is only on 10.08.2004 that the appellant had come to know about the passing of the award dated 09.06.2004. This assertion of the appellant is false on the very face of it has in a civil suit on file no. 1/Civil instituted on 12.02.2004 which came to be disposed of by the Court of Munsiff, Batote on 03.07.2004 in which the appellant herein figured as plaintiff no. 1 along with three other as co-plaintiffs against Chuni Lal and others as defendants. There is an admission recorded in the judgment itself that the land in Khasra nos. 244 and 246 were in possession of Border Road Organization (GREF) and now acquired by the Army along with other khasra numbers of the village. 14. This observation by the Court of Munsiff, Batote in its judgment dated 03.07.2004 leaves no iota of doubt that in the month of Feburary 2004 itself at the time of filing of the suit the fact of the land acquisition qua the khasra nos. 244 and 246 along with other khasra numbers was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff of the said suit which included the appellant herein. 15. 244 and 246 along with other khasra numbers was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff of the said suit which included the appellant herein. 15. A copy of the said plaint is on the record for reference of the Court and, as such, this fact in itself exposes the bluff of the appellant about the fact that passing of award was ex-parte and without knowledge of the appellant. 16. Furthermore in its application dated 16.05.2005 on the basis of which the Collector Land Acquisition actually came to generate reference to the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban there is found no whisper of fact made on the part of the appellant that any previous application had been so made by her as alleged in her present memo of appeal that she had come to make an application dated 03.09.2004 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 to the Collector Land Acquisition (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Ramban. In fact even in her application presented on 07.12.2004 directly to the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban and whereupon the purported reference proceedings had come to commence, there is no hint of fact worth name that the appellant had firstly applied to the Collector Land Acquisition (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Ramban in terms of her alleged application dated 03.03.2004 for seeking reference. 17. 17. This plea of the appellant that she had made a previous application for seeking reference to the Collector Land Acquisition (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Ramban is in fact acknowledgement of the fact by the appellant that it was well known to her that to approach the Collector Land Acquisition for seeking reference was requisite and that time for seeking the said reference was also to be met and that is why the appellant, in order to come out of the situation, chose to fall back upon plea that she had made an alleged application to the Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban and that her direct filing of an application before the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban was nothing but a proceeding null and void ab initio and same ought not be have been given any run by the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban at the first instance and even if the same enjoyed any proceeding it ought to have been dropped by the fact that the Collector Land Acquisition (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Ramban came to submit time barred reference dated 16.05.2005 to the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban. 18. This Court has no hesitation in registering its displeasure and censure to the fact that the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban at the relevant point of time when the proceedings came to originate before it at the asking of the appellant had acted without any application of judicial mind and even carried forward the same mind state till the final disposal of the case. This anomaly is evident from the fact that in the impugned judgment the appellant's case is referred as Reference no./2 and its date of institution is shown to be 07.12.2004 whereas the reference in fact before the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban had come to be generated only on 16.05.2005 by forwarding of the application of the appellant for reference under section 18/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, Svt., 1990. 19. 19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is disqualifying the appellant from maintaining the present appeal both on account of the fact that she has resorted to misleading and misrepresentation of facts at every relevant point of time and secondly by she has reaped what she has sown inasmuch as the finding of the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban in its impugned judgment that the reference was time barred is not factually incorrect even though the proceedings before the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban were nothing but a mess-up. 20. Thus this appeal is meritless and, accordingly, dismissed. 21. Record of the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramban to be remitted back.