Karim Baksh v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In light of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 0404. In light of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as being not maintainable, leaving the petitioner free to work out the remedy as referred above. (Rahul Bharti) Judge Jammu 18.09.2023 Muneesh
Judgment
Through: Mr. Qayoom Choudhary, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER 18.09.2023
The petitioner is aggrieved of the fact that for the land acquisition award no. CALA/DC/RSI/2022-23/394-96 dated
06.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, as being competent authority for land acquisition, Reasi under National Highways Act, 1956 read with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013, his name is omitted out from list of owners qua the land acquired.
The petitioner refers to the land comprised in khasra no. 389 measuring 16.4 marlas in village Kundarorian, tehsil Katra, district Reasi, setting up a claim that he is reflected as an owner in the 1964 revenue record. Simultaneously, the petitioner is also 2 WP(C) No. 2411/2023 referring to the fact that he is in appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Reasi against mutation no. 824 read with mutation no. 623 dated
25.03.1978 attested under section 4 & 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 way back in 1978 by the Tehsildar Reasi with respect to the land in reference in which the petitioner came to be omitted out.
In view of the fact that the petitioner as on the date of passing of the impugned award in reference was not figuring as an owner of the land acquisition, as such, the petitioner may not have the locus to maintain the present writ petition seeking stoppage of disbursement of the compensation to the persons who have been held entitled under the award in reference for receiving the compensation. At best, the petitioner can seek indulgence of the appellate authority of Additional Deputy Commissioner (with power of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Reasi who is seized of the matter to pass any interim direction, if found to be merit based with respect to the disbursement of the compensation qua the land in reference or work out other legal remedy available at the disposal.
Operative part
In light of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as being not maintainable, leaving the petitioner free to work out the remedy as referred above. (Rahul Bharti) Judge Jammu 18.09.2023 Muneesh
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In light of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
National Highways Act, 1956; Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 — ss. 4, 8.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.