Serial No.91 Reg. Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1814/2023 MANZOOR AHMAD SHEIKH … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shiekh Younis, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Alla Ud Din Ganai, AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 15.09.2025 1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution states that land measuring 11 Marlas falling under survey No. 981/71 situated at village Gutroo Tehsil Aripal District Pulwama devolved upon the petitioner upon the death of his mother, and samecame to be taken over by the respondents, with an assurance to the petitioner that he will be appointed or otherwise will be paid rent under law for the occupation of the said land and that the respondents, however, did not adhere to the said assurance despite the fact that the petitioner repeatedly represented before them, and that although various inter se communications came to be addressed by the respondents on 19.09.2013, 12.03.2016, 02.07.2016, 31.12.2016, 21.01.2017, 17.02.2017, 12.02.2019 on 13.03.2019 followed by 17.02.2020 and lastly on 10.06.2021, the respondents failed to redress the grievances of the petitioner. 2. It is also stated that upon taking up the matter by the petitioner with the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tral on 28.06.2021, a report thereof was sought by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tral from Zonal Educational Officer, Lurgam in response whereof it came to be reported that the revenue papers of the land in question stand authenticated by concerned Tehsildar, yet despite that, the respondents failed to redress the grievance of the petitioner, thus necessitating the filing of the instant petition. 3. Objections to the petition has been filed by the respondent 1 & 2 , wherein it is being stated that in the year 2012 the mother of the petitioner voluntarily donated 3 marlas of land covered under survey No. 981/71 to the respondent-department whereafter in the year 2012, additional 8 marlas of land was provided by the petitioner to the respondents for construction of the school building, whereupon construction of 3 ACR building including a kitchen shed and two units of toilet block came to be constructed besides constructing a boundary wall thereof. 4. It is further stated that no promise or assurance to engage the petitioner was ever made in lieu of the land in question and the school is running therein that the building constructed over the land in question without any objection from the petitioner. 5. It is also stated that despite the said fact, the case of the petitioner for grant of compensation qua 8 marlas of land was initiated under and in terms of the provisions of “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” vide communication dated 01.10.2021, as a consequence whereof the petitioner was called upon to furnish requisite documents including an affidavit that the land is free from all encumbrances/ court cases, which the petitioner refuse to furnish. 6. It is further stated that Chief Education Officer, Pulwama was directed by the Collector Land Acquisition (Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tral) to authenticate the revenue extracts of the land in question and also submit and indent under the Act of 2013, however, the Chief Education Officer, informed the Collector that the petitioner failed to produce the documents and furnish the affidavit sought from him while stating further that the petitioner instead is adamant in claiming his engagement as a contingent paid worker in lieu of the land and that since there is no provision or rule for engagement of contingent paid worker in lieu of the land donated, as such, the petitioner could not be engaged. 7. Reply has also filed by respondent 3 wherein it has been stated that as per the revenue records the petitioner is owner of land measuring 11 marlas covered under survey no. 981/71 having devolved upon him from his mother’s estate and reportedly the said land was donated by the petitioner to the School Education Department and that the petitioner later sought compensation from the said Department and that the land compensation case of the petitioner stands prepared under the Act of 2013 and the Chief Education Officer, Pulwama had been asked to file indent and authenticate the revenue papers and that the revenue papers were prepared and forwarded, duly attested by the Tehsildar Aripal to the Education Department for placement of the indent and authentication of the said revenue papers. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Having regard to the settled position of law that right to property is a basic human right which is akin to a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and that no one can be deprived of his property other than by following procedure prescribed by law. 9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and coming back to the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the respondents have utilized the 11 marlas of land belonging to the petitioner for construction of school building/s, however, what is being disputed by the respondent/ Education Department is that out of 11 marlas of said land, 3 marlas came to be donated by the mother of the petitioner voluntarily and thereafter 8 marlas of land as well came to be provided by the petitioner himself to the Education Department for construction of school. 10. A closer examination of the record available on the file in general and the reply filed by the respondent- Education Department, however, suggests and reveals that no documentary proof authenticating such donation has been placed on record by the respondent- Education Department, thereby raising a strong presumption in favour of the petitioner that the respondents have taken over the proprietary land of the petitioner without following procedure prescribed by law and have utilized the same for construction of the school building. 11. It is, however, forthcoming from the record that a process for grant of compensation qua the said 11 marlas of land initiated by the respondents under the Act of 2013, yet the respondents have not concluded the said process for one reason or the other. 12. In view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter it cannot but be said that the petitioner has been deprived by the respondents of his proprietary land without following procedure prescribed by law. 13. Accordingly, the respondents are commanded to pay compensation to the petitioner for the 11 marlas of land in question under the Act of 2013 and also pay rentals thereof from the date the said land was taken over by them till such time the said compensation cases is settled and compensation is paid thereof to the petitioner. 14. The aforesaid exercise for payment of rentals as also the payment of compensation as above shall be initiated, processed and concluded by the respondents within three months from the date copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the them and in the event respondents fails to adhere to the said time stipulation, the respondents shall be liable to pay an interest to the petitioner over the rentals as also the compensation @ 7% from date of the accrual of the said payment till the date of its actual payment. 15. Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 15.09.2025 “S.Nuzhat” Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reporting Yes/No