Sr. No v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

Through :- Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG for R-1 Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-2 to 4 Mr. P N Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J A Hamal, Advocate for R-5 CCP(S) No. 135/2022 CM No. 6355/2023 1. Sweety Kantroo @ Reshi aged 50 years 2. Babita, aged 39 years, Both D/O Late Amar Chand Reshi, Originally resident of Village Akingam, Anantnag, A/P H.No. 186-C, Lane No. H, Sector-II, Durga Nagar, Jammu. ….Petitioner(s) 2 OWP No. 1382/2011 Through:- Mr. K L Pandita, Advocate v/s

1. Shailendra Kumar, Commissioner/Secretary Tourism Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar. 2. Piyush Singla, Deputy Commissioner, District Magistrate Anantnag Kashmir. ….Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG for R-1 Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE JUDGMENT

1. Admittedly, the father of the petitioners and private respondent Shiban Lal Reshi namely Late Amar Chand Reshi was owner of land measuring 10K- 8M situated at Akingam Tehsil Kokernag of District Anantnag and this land had been identified, in an Officers’ meeting headed by the Deputy Commissioner Anantnag on 04.05.2007 for development of Tourist Village by the Tourism Department and the Committee of the Officers on the intimation of Local Tehsildar after detailed discussion was of the opinion that an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs per kanal was reasonable rate for acquisition of the land in question and the Indenting Department was directed to obtain written consent of the owner who was a migrant residing at Jammu for acceptance of the proposed rate. The petitioners who claim to be successors-in-interest of their predecessor Late Amar Chand Reshi owner of the land, besides respondent No.5, have moved this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.5 have submitted that the land in question had been used by the official respondents for development of a Tourist Village and have also raised some structures in that land but have not initiated any proceedings for acquisition of the land 3 OWP No. 1382/2011 in question and used the land without paying the compensation to the land owners.

3. The respondent No.1 in its reply has stated that the Department of Tourism in the year 2007 had identified a piece of land measuring 11K-11M comprising of Survey No. 458 and 1K-2M under Survey No. 2139/466 situate at Akingam belonging to respondent No.5 Shiban Lal Reshi for development of Tourist Village at Akingam; that the land was proposed to be acquired through Private Negotiation Committee (PNC) in a meeting held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag on

04.07.2005 deciding the rate as Rs.2.00 lacs per kanal; that the Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag processed the case under the provisions of J&K State Land Acquisition Act 1990 for paying compensation and passed Final Award vide No. 480-81/LA/Ang dated 15.06.200, for an amount of Rs.25.30 lacs in lieu of the said land; that entire amount of the compensation, has already been placed by the Directorate of Tourism Kashmir at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner Anantnag on

17.03.2007 and 11.06.2007 for payment to the land owners; that the physical possession of the aforesaid land had been handed over to the Department of Tourism, after proper demarcation by the Revenue Department, in presence of the land owner Shiban Lal Reshi on 16.06.2007 for development of Tourist Village Akingam.

4. From the pleading of the parties, it appears that the land in question, in the name of Late Amar Chand Reshi the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and respondent No.5, had not been acquired, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed to have been taken over and used by the Tourism Department by depositing an amount of 4 OWP No. 1382/2011 compensation at the rate of Rs.2.00 lacs per kanal with the Deputy Commissioner Anantnag, for payment to the claimants.

5. The claimants’ case is that they have never been associated with the acquisition process nor they ever agreed to the rate decided by the Committee of the Officers, as such, they did not reconcile to the payment of compensation assessed by the Committee of Officers and prayed that they be paid compensation, according to the market value of the land, in accordance with law.

6. This Court vide order dated 23.11.2012 had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag, to accord consideration to the apportionment and disbursement (unless already disbursed) of the compensation amount amongst legal heirs of the deceased estate holder, of course having due regard to the stand taken by respondent No.2 and provisions of Land Acquisition Act, preferably within a period of three months. It appears that aggrieved of this order, the petitioners filed an Intra Court Appeal and a Division Bench of this Court in LPAOW No. 12/2013 quashed the Order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the case to be decided afresh, in accordance with law.

7. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.02.2023 when this petition was listed before the Division Bench as per roster, directed the respondent No.1 to initiate the process of acquisition of subject land by placing a formal indent with the Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013. 5 OWP No. 1382/2011

8. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG learned counsel for the official respondent/ Tourism Department has submitted that since the land has already been acquired through private negotiation by taking on board respondent No.5 who was one of the co-sherers having inherited the estate of the original land owner, therefore, there was no harm in passing the Award based on private negotiation and the petitioners should have been contended with the compensation settled by the Collector as the Indenting Department had also deposited whole of the amount directed to be deposited with the Collectorate for further disbursement to the claimants. Both the counsels appearing for the official respondents have, thus, submitted that the petitioners for the acquisition of their land in the year 2007 cannot turn around in the year 2011 when they file this petition to challenge the same and prayed that the petition be rejected.

9. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and considered the matter.

10. On perusal of the pleadings it is abundantly clear that the land in question which is subject matter of this writ petition had been used by the Tourism Department in view of a decision taken by the Officers in a meeting headed by Deputy Commissioner Anantnag for development of Tourist Village Akingam and that no formal proceedings for acquisition of the land were initiated and a unilateral decision was taken by the Officers with regard to rate of land which was to be conveyed to the land owner.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of at this stage with the following directions:- (i) The Order dated 04.05.2007 is partially quashed to the extent of acquisition of the land of the petitioners and respondent No.5 measuring 10 Kanal 8 Marlas situate at Akingam against a payment of Rs.2.00 lacs per kanal stated 6 OWP No. 1382/2011 to have been acquired on the basis of private negotiation in a meeting of Officers headed by the Deputy Commissioner as Chairman of PNC Anantnag, having been inherited by the petitioners and respondent No.5 with regard to the estate of their predecessor-in-interest Amar Nath Reshi with further direction to the official respondents to acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (ii) The Indenting Department i.e Tourism Department is directed to file an indent to the District Collector, if not already filed, for acquisition of the land within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this judgment/order is served upon respondent No.1. (iii) The Collector-respondent No.3 shall proceed in the matter on receiving of the indent from the Indenting Department, in accordance with law for acquisition of the land.

12. Petition along with pending application(s) is, accordingly, disposed of CCP(S) No. 135/2022

13. In view of the detailed judgment/order and fresh directions passed in the main writ petition OWP No. 1382/201, nothing survives in this Contempt petition. Viewed thus, the proceedings in the contempt petition are closed. (M A Chowdhary) Judge JAMMU 06.03.2024 Vijay Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes