HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 3056/2023 Sampuran Singh S/o Rasal Singh R/o Village Garkhal, Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu …..Appellants Through: Mr. G.S Thakur, Advocate Vs 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir 2. The Collector (Sub Divisional Magistrate) Land Acquisition, Akhnoor 3. Jai Singh 4. Gulzar Singh, both sons of Hakikat Singh 5. Kuldeep Singh 6. Romesh Singh Both sons of Babu Singh, All residents of village Garkhal, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu. .…. Respondents Through: Ms Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1 & 2 Mr.Vasharan Thakur, Advocate for R-3 to 6 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 20.08.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has sought a direction upon respondent No. 2 to make reference to District Judge, Jammu in respect of Award No. SDM/Akh/LAC/12 dated 29.04.2019 in respect of land measuring 02 kanals falling in khasra No. 548 situated at Garkhal, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu. 2. As per case of the petitioner, he is owner of land measuring 07 kanals 05 marlas falling in Khasra No. 548 situated at village Garkhal Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu which was purchased by him from erstwhile owner namely Gandharb Singh for sale consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. It has been submitted that agreement to sell dated 11.11.1995 came to be executed in favour of the petitioner whereafter, he was put in possession of the said land. The land Sr. No. 18 2 WP(C) No. 3056/2023 is stated to be situated near International Border with Pakistan and for setting up of Camp for Army Authorities, land measuring 02 kanals out of the aforesaid land has been utilized by Border Security Force and rest of the land is under possession of the petitioner. It has been submitted that because erstwhile owner had died issueless, as such, the sale deed could not be executed in respect of the land in question but the petitioner continues to be in possession of the same. 3. It has been submitted that after undertaking proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, an award dated 29.04.2019 came to be passed by the Collector/respondent No. 2 but compensation is not being disbursed to the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has already filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction before the Court of City Judge, Jammu. According to the petitioner, the dispute with regard to the apportionment of the land in question assessed by the Collector is required to be referred to the District Judge, Jammu for adjudication. It has been submitted that the award passed by the Collector is ex-parte without issuing notice to the petitioner as such, the petitioner was not aware about the said award. It has been submitted that when the petitioner came to know about the award, he has made a representation before the Collector but no action has been taken by the Collector. 4. The official respondents, in their reply to the writ petition, have submitted that as per the revenue record, land measuring 07 kanals 05 marlas falling under khasra No. 548 min is recorded in the ownership of Shankar Singh and others in cultivation column, Gandharb Singh co-sharer and Kasht in the name of the petitioner is recorded. It has been submitted that the petitioner produced a notarized agreement to sell in respect of land in question and in the absence of any unregistered sale deed, it cannot be stated that the petitioner is 3 WP(C) No. 3056/2023 owner of the said land. Thus, ownership of petitioner in respect of the land in question is denied by the official respondents. 5. It has also been submitted that out of the aforesaid land, land measuring 01 kanal 02 marlas has come under the Border Fencing. It has been further submitted that after the death of owner-Gandharb Singh, inheritance mutation No 601 has been attested in favour of Babu Singh and Hakeeqat Singh and vide mutation No. 607, after the death of Haqeeqat Singh, the mutation has been attested in favour of Babu Singh and Gulzar Singh. Again, mutation of inheritance bearing No. 743 in respect of Babu Singh had now been attested in favour of Kuldeep Singh, Romesh Singh (sons), Nina Devi, Arti Devi, Sushma Devi (daughters), Ram Kumari Wd/o Late Babu Singh in equal shares. It has been submitted that the compensation in respect of land has been assessed but the same has not been disbursed. 6. The private respondents, in their reply to the writ petition, have submitted that the petitioner does not have any right or interest in the land in question. It has been submitted that the award was made on 29.04.2019 whereas the representation made by the petitioner before the Collector on 04.09.2023, which is clearly barred by time. It has been contended that the Collector is not obliged to make a reference in these circumstances. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has not acquired any title to the property in question because there is no registered instrument of title in his favour from the previous owner. It has been further submitted that it is only the civil Court which can decide the question of title with regard to the land in question. It has been submitted that the petitioner has already approached the civil Court and the suit is pending before the said Court and until the issue of title is determined by the civil Court, the petitioner has right to seek reference even under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4 WP(C) No. 3056/2023 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. The petitioner’s claim relating to the onwership of the acquired portion of land is based upon agreement to sell executed by the erstwhile owner of the land in his favour, whereas, the private respondents are the persons in whose favour the mutation of inheritance has been attested and the property of the erstwhile owner and the land in question has devolved. The dispute as to the title of the land in question is admittedly pending before the civil Court where, the petitioner has raised the plea of adverse possession on the ground that though his title to the suit property on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell is void but because he has been in uninterrupted and hostile possession of the suit property as such, he has become owner by way of adverse possession. This issue has to be determined by the civil Court. The petitioner having already approached the civil Court cannot now seek reference of the same issue to District Judge, Jammu. Making a reference to the District Judge would amount to permitting two parallel proceedings before two different Courts on the same issue. This may lead to conflicting determinaations on the same issue by two different Courts. Thus, the present writ petition cannot be allowed to proceed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the civil Court which he has already availed. 10. Disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 20.08.2025 Tarun/PS Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No Tarun Kumar Gupta 2025.08.26 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document