Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 31: In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has quashed the order of the District Collector, Baramulla, who had rejected the petitioners' plea seeking reference of a land compensation dispute to the competent civil court in connection with acquisition of land for widening of the Baramulla-Kupwara National Highway at Delina.
At the outset of the judgment, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi remarked, "There are two lasting bequests parents normally want to provide to their children with, one of these is roots and other is wings." The Court used the observation while reflecting on the emotional backdrop of the family dispute over compensation for the acquired land.
The case arose out of rival claims over compensation for land acquired under Survey Nos. 92-B and 233 at Estate Delina. The petitioners, legal heirs of late Mst. Malla Begum, claimed that the property formed part of the estate of Abdul Ahad Ganie and, after his death, had devolved upon his widow and two daughters under Muslim Personal Law. They alleged that respondent No. 5 got the entire estate mutated in her favour to the exclusion of their mother and later sought to receive the entire compensation for the acquired land.
The petitioners challenged the Collector's order dated 11-03-2025, whereby their application seeking reference under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was rejected on the ground that only the recorded owner was entitled to compensation. They argued that once a dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment of compensation arises, the competent authority has no jurisdiction to decide title and is legally bound to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
The High Court took note of the fact that the petitioners had already filed civil proceedings before the District Judge, Baramulla, seeking declaration, partition and other reliefs, thereby clearly showing that a bona fide title dispute existed between the parties. The Court found that such disputed questions of ownership, inheritance and apportionment could not be conclusively determined by the Collector while dealing with compensation under the acquisition law.
Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Aswad Attar, Advocate, submitted that the expression "shall refer" in Section 3H(4) is mandatory in nature and once a dispute arises, the competent authority must send the matter to the civil court. Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Deputy Advocate General, represented the Union Territory, while Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Owais Dar and Ms. Syed Gousia Tabassum, Advocates, appeared for respondent No. 5. (JNF) |
