J & K Superior Court directs compensation for acquisition

The Superior Court of Jammu and Cashmira held that land classified as Shamilat-e-dehOnce it is considered acquired in the name of any person, it is as good as the patented land, and the owner has the right to compensation in its acquisition by the government.

The Court said that, in view of the income records, respondents cannot dispute or deny the property of the petitioner on the land in question in order to provide compensation after acquiring it for the construction of a ration deposit/godown.

A bank of JOVED IQBAL WANI Sustained that the land in question will be considered acquired and the defendant will be ordered to calculate the amount of the compensation payable to the petitioner instead of said land, together with the sol that and the interest of 6% of PA in all sums due to the petitioner. The court argued that according to article 300 of the Constitution, no person can be deprived of property without legal acquisition and fair compensation.

The court also argued that the government cannot claim a voluntary donation without documentary evidence. He noted that it was highly unlikely for an individual to donate land without any compensation or labor guarantee. He added that the petitioner had continually followed compensation for more than three decades, discarding any voluntary surrender of that land.

BACKGROUND

In this case, the petitioner provided its patented land (5 Marlas) to the government in 1990 to build a deposit of rations/GTOWN, according to the security that one of the family members would be appointed for a class IV position in the department. Despite pursuing the matter for years, the government did not fulfill its promise of employment or provided any compensation for the land.

The government argued that this land was Shamilat-e-deh (common land of the village) and had been voluntarily donated by the petitioner; Therefore, the petitioner had no right to any compensation.

The court said Chamilat The land, once it has been granted with anyone, is as good as proprietary lands, and any acquisition of the same right to the owner to compensation. The court also pointed out that the constant search for the petitioner of compensation during the last three decades rules out any possibility of voluntary donation in the absence of documentary evidence.

APPEARANCE:

Bakhat Parvaiz, lawyer for the petitioners

Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.ag. For respondents

Case title: Mohammad Shafi Beight vs Ut of J & K and Ors. 2025 LIVELAW (JKL)

Click here to read/download order