SHER MOHD. Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
Rajesh Bindal,J. -
(1.)The petitioners has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to attest mutation in their favour under Government order No. LB- 6/C of 1958 dated 05.06.1958, with respect of land measuring 100 kanals situated in village Barote, Tehsil Basholi, District Kathua. Further direction has been sought to attest mutation in favour of the petitioner under Government order No. S-432 of 1966 dated 03.06.1966, declaring the petitioners as owners of the aforesaid land. A direction has also been sought to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners as the aforesaid land was acquired for construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam.
(2.)It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioners were in occupation of the land for a long time. The land was ultimately allotted to them in the year 1960. The same was acquired for construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam in the year 1982. The notification u/s 4(1) of J&K Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 13.08.1982. The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, on 17.12.1993. It was further claimed that at the time of acquisition of the land, the petitioners were in possession of the land in question. The prayers made in the petition are in the light of the aforesaid brief facts.
(3.)In the aforesaid factual matrix, in my opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The government orders, which the petitioners may seek to rely upon for attestation of mutation in their favour, were issued in the years 1958 and 1966. The petitioners slept over the matter. Admittedly, the land in question was acquired by the State for construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam for which notification u/s 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 13.08.1982. The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.12.1993. That would mean that even the award was announced about 18 years prior to the filing of the writ petition. The petitioners kept quiet for all along. There is nothing on record to suggest that they ever raised any dispute regarding ownership of the land or apportionment of the compensation thereof with the Land Acquisition Collector by filing any objections. It cannot be denied that they were in knowledge of the acquisition of the land as they claim that they were in possession thereof at the time of acquisition. In fact the plea of they being in possession is false on the face of it. Had the possession been taken from them in the year 1993-94, they would have raised hue and cry immediately and not slept over the matter for decades.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.