HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 11.02.2025 Pronounced on: 27.02.2025 WP(C) No. 1855/2021 CM No. 6985/2021 CM No. 6899/2024 Gain Chand/Singh Age 70 years S/o Sh. Sunder Singh R/o Sangaldan Tehsil Gool District Ramban …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bodh Raj Sharma, Advocate vs 1. UT of Jammu & Kashmir Through its Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. Deputy Commissioner Ramban. 3. Collector Land Acquisition (SDM) Gool District Ramban. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition for directing the respondents to release the compensation in his favour, as already assessed by respondent No. 3 in accordance with the award dated 31.07.2015 in lieu of the land measuring 13 Kanal 8 Marlas comprising Survey Nos. 156, 133/3 situated at Village Sangaldan Tehsil Gool, District Ramban, acquired by the respondents vide award dated 31.07.2015. 2 WP(C) No. 1855/2021 3. The respondents have filed the response stating therein that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as they are in illegal possession of the State land and further that the judgments in „Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & ors.’ and ‘Krishan Singh vs. U.T of J&K‟ are not applicable in the instant case because in this case the land has been acquired at the instance of Northern Railways and not the U.T of J&K. Further, the compensation was paid only to those, whose possession was regularised under any Government Order issued from time to time and that too only to the extent of 1/3rd of the compensation in terms of SRO 495 of 2002. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 21.08.2021, titled, “Krishan Singh and Anr. Versus UT of J&K passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 153/2020. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that the original petitioner was in illegal possession of the State land measuring 21 Kanal 3 Marlas comprising survey numbers as mentioned above. Award reveals that the land measuring 13 Kanal 8 Marlas comprising Survey Nos. 156, 133/3 situated at Village Sangaldan Tehsil Gool, District Ramban, stands acquired vide award dated 31.07.2015 and the statement of compensation reveals that total compensation assessed in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 along with jabrana is Rs. 23,60,725. 7. The Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court in “Krishan Singh and Anr. Versus UT of J&K” bearing LPA No. 153/2020 decided on 21.08.2021, in paras „6‟, „7‟ and „8‟ has observed as under: - 3 WP(C) No. 1855/2021 “6 From a perusal of the award` passed in the instant case and the apportionment statement prepared by the Collector Land Acquisition, Gool, it is abundantly clear that the compensation has been worked out by the Collector in the name of the appellants, who have been found to be in cultivating possession thereof. No doubt, the State is the owner of the State land, but as is held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharda Devi (supra) that the Government, not being a person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act, has no right to compensation payable for the land owned and possessed by it. To be precise, the State land cannot be made subject matter of acquisition at the instance of and for the benefit of the Government. Otherwise also, the award passed by the Collector Land Acquisition, Gool in the instant case has become final and the respondents have not challenged the same. It, thus, does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the appellants, though named in the apportionment statement to receive the compensation, should be denied the compensation on the ground that they are not the owner of the land acquired, but were only found to be in cultivating possession. 7 This Court considered similar question in case titled ‘Krishana vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors’ (OWP No. 1101/2016) and, after relying upon several judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court, concluded that the person in possession of the land is a ‘person interested’ and entitled to compensation of the acquired land as per the final award, even though he may not be owner of the property and the land is a State land. It is not in dispute that the appellants have been in long continuous possession of the land and have, therefore, acquired sufficient interest in the land to claim compensation. 8 For facility of reference, the observations of this Court in paragraph 22 of the judgment rendered in the case of Krishana (supra) are reproduced hereunder: “This is exactly the position in the present case, where while making the award, the Collector itself determined the compensation in respect of the aforesaid State land recognizing the tenancy/possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the compensation that has been determined under the award in respect of the land in question is for the person interested namely, the petitioner. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner is the person interested entitled to the compensation of the acquired land as per the final award dated 20.03.2012 to the tune of Rs. 85,388/-, Even though he may not be the owner of the property and the land is that of the State simply on the basis even though he may not be the owner of the property and the land is that of the State simply on the basis of his long possession which is not in dispute”. (emphasis added) 8. It is worthwhile to mention here that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court but the SLP was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2024. In this case 4 WP(C) No. 1855/2021 also, the respondent No.3 has assessed the compensation payable to the original petitioner and the award has not been challenged by the U.T Of J&K on the ground that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of land and as such, is not entitled to any compensation. In fact, there is admission on the part of the respondents that the original petitioner was in illegal possession of the land acquired by the respondents and the revenue record placed on record by the petitioner establishes the long possession of the petitioner. Once the award is not challenged and the same has attained finality, the petitioners cannot be denied the compensation assessed by no one else but the Collector. 9. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 to release the compensation in favour of the petitioner(s) assessed by the respondent No.3, within the period of 8 weeks, failing which the petitioner(s) shall be entitled to interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the actual compensation is paid to the petitioner(s). 10. Disposed of. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 27.02.2025 Neha-II Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No KARAM CHAND 2025.02.27 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document