HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2855/2022 CM No. 7934/2022 1. Harbans Lal S/o Sh.Kirpa Ram R/o Marhol, Tehsil Bishnah District Jammu 2. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Barkat Ram R/o Marhol Tehsil Bishnah District Jammu. …..Appellants Through: Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Advocate Vs 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue Department Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu 2. Deputy Commissioner, Samba 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vijaypur 4. National Highway Authority of India Through its Project Director National Highway 1-A, 315, Sector-1 Channi Himmat, Jammu. .…. Respondents Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. Kamal Mangotra, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 13.08.2025 1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition have sought a direction upon the respondents for restraining them from constructing public road/national highway/express road by utilizing their land measuring 04 kanals 16 marlas falling under khasra No. 113-min situated at village Bara District Samba without adopting due course of law. Alternative prayer to the effect that in case the said land is utilized for construction of the road, the petitioners be paid compensation in accordance with law, has also been made. Sr. No. 13 2 WP(C) No. 2855/2022 2. According to the case of the petitioners, they are owners of the aforesaid land which they have purchased by way of registered sale deeds dated 12.04.2012 and 08.02.2012 from the erstwhile owners. It has been submitted that Collector, Land Acquisition (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Samba issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act on 06.09.2012 for acquisition of the land for construction of oil depot and approach road. The aforesaid land was also included in the said notification. According to the petitioners, they were never served with the notice dated 06.09.2012 and the mandatory requirements regarding publication of the notice under Section 4 (1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act were not adhered to by the Collector. 3. It has been submitted that on 30.10.2012, declaration under Section 6, 7 & 17 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act came to be issued by the Government whereafter, notification under Sections 9, 9-A, 9(2) & 17-A of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 13.02.2013. The petitioners are stated to have challenged the aforesaid notifications by way of a writ petition bearing OWP No. 617/2013 which came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 30.05.2013 with a direction to the respondents to consider the objections filed by the petitioners within a period of four weeks. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioners are stated to have filed their objections to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the petitioners are stated to have challenged the proceedings again by way of a writ petition bearing OWP No. 1763/2013 in which an interim order came to be passed by this Court on 24.12.2013 whereby the proceedings with regard to acquisition of the aforesaid land of the petitioners 3 WP(C) No. 2855/2022 were stayed and it was provided that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. 5. It has been submitted that in spite of the aforesaid order, the respondents have tried to construct the road from the aforesaid land of the petitioners without adopting due course of law which prompted the petitioners to file another petitions bearing WP(C) No. 2711/2019. Again an interim order came to be passed in the said writ petition on 22.07.2019 directing the respondents not to go ahead with the construction work over the land of the petitioners without adopting due course of law. In the meantime, respondent No 4-National Highway Authority is stated to have tried to forcibly construct national highway/express road on the aforesaid land of the petitioners which was resisted by them by approaching this Court by way of present petition. It has been contended that respondent No. 4-National Highway Authority is obliged to pay compensation to the petitioners for utilizing the aforesaid land and without doing so, the said respondent cannot take possession of the land in question. 6. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their reply to the writ petition have submitted that land measuring 32 kanals 08 marlas of land situated at village Bara Tehsil Vijaypur District Samba was notified for acquisition on 09.03.2021/ 23.12.2021 by publication of notifications under Section 3 A(1) of the National Highways Act which was duly published in newspapers namely State Times, Amar Ujala dated 25.03.2021 and Daily Excelsior dated 26.12.2021. It has been submitted that even the objections to the said notification were received which were duly considered. It has been further submitted that after identification of correct area of the land, the Central 4 WP(C) No. 2855/2022 Government declared land measuring 32 kanals 08 marlas situated at village Bara should be acquired in terms of Section 3-D of National Highways Act and the said declaration was also published in the newspapers namely State Times, Amar Ujala and Daily Excelsior. It has been contended that after following all the provisions laid down in National Highways Act and other rules, final award of the aforesaid land measuring 32 kanals 08 marlas was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Samba vide No. DCS/SM/DKE/22- 23/290-92 dated 22.06.2022. 7. It is the stand of the respondents that land measuring 02 kanals 10 marlas belonging to the petitioner-Harbans Lal and land measuring 08 kanals 03 Sarsair belonging to petitioner Raj Kumar has come under the alignment of National Highway for which compensation to the tune of Rs. 83,05,750/- and Rs. 13,84,291/- respectively has been assessed. It has been submitted that the compensation is not payable to the petitioners as the land measuring 05 kanals falling under khasra No. 113 was acquired b them from Shankar Singh, the erstwhile owner who was conferred with ownership rights in terms of Government Order S-432-C of 1966. It has been submitted that because the said land could not have been alienated without prior permission of the Government, the petitioners are not entitled to any land compensation in respect of the aforesaid portion of the acquired land. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the material on record.. 9. So far as the challenge to the acquisition proceedings is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners would be 5 WP(C) No. 2855/2022 satisfied if the alternative prayer made in the petition is considered by this Court without quashing the acquisition proceedings. 10. It is not in dispute that the land measuring 04 kanals 16 marlas falling under khasra No. 113-min situated at village Bhara, Tehsil Vijaypur District Samba belonging to the petitioners has been utilized by National Highway Authority for construction of the road. It is also not in dispute that as per the award passed by the Collector, compensation in respect of the portion of the land belonging to the petitioners has been assessed. 11. However, contention of the respondents is that the compensation cannot be disbursed to the petitioners because their predecessor-in-interest had acquired the title to the said land in terms of Government Orders LB-6/C of 1958 and S-432-C of 1966. On account of this, it is being contended that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners could not have alienated the said land in their favour without previous permission of the Government. It is being contended that because the land in question has been transferred in favour of the petitioners in violation of conditions contained in the aforesaid two Government orders, title of the petitioners with regard to the land is defective and illegal as such, they are not entitled to any compensation. 12. The question whether a person who has acquired proprietary rights in respect of the land allotted in terms of Government Order No. LB-6/C of 1958 and S-432-C of 1966 is vested with power to alienate the said land is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kewal Krishan Vs. State of J&K and ors; 2004 SLJ 617 has held that occupant of a State land after being recorded as tenant-at-will in terms of Government Order No. LB-6/C becomes entitled to ownership rights over such land in 6 WP(C) No. 2855/2022 terms of Government Orders No. S-432-C of 1966. The Division Bench further held that Government Order No. LB-6/C and S-432-C are in the nature of recognition of vested rights in favour of the person entitled to be recorded as tenant-at-will and owner under the said Government orders. It has been held that so long as these Government orders which confer substantive rights upon the occupants of State lands are in force, no restriction can be imposed upon the recognition of such rights. 13. A single Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Akbar Shah and ors. Vs. State and ors.; AIR 2017 J&K 14 has more specifically dealt with the issue relating to status of a person who has been conferred property rights in respect of State land under Government Order No. S-432-C of 1966. The Court has held that once the mutation pursuant to Government order No. S- 432-C of 1966 is attested in favour of an allottee and he is conferred with the proprietary rights over the land, his rights are thereafter, governed by the Transfer of Property Act, Land Alienation Act and Agrarian Reforms Act. It has been held that the condition of seeking prior permission of Government from alienating such land in terms of paragraph No. (4) of Government Order No. S-432-C of 1966 has been rendered otiose and it will not affect the right of the owner of the land to alienate the same without the previous permission of the Government. 14. In view of the foregoing settled position of law, it cannot be stated that the petitioners did not acquire perfect title to the land in question merely because their predecessor-in-interest had not sought permission of the Government before transferring his ownership rights in the land in question in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the contention of the respondents that the petitioners 7 WP(C) No. 2855/2022 are not entitled to compensation for the portion of their land which has been utilized for construction of the Highway is not tenable. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent-Collector to release the compensation assessed in respect of the aforesaid land of the petitioners in their favour along with interest that may have accrued thereon. Needful be done by the Collector within a period of one month from the date, a copy of this order is served upon the respondent- Collector. 16. Disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 13.08.2025 Tarun/P/S Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No Tarun Kumar Gupta 2025.09.17 22:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document