CM(M) No.233/2024 Page No. 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 13.05.2025 Pronounced on:23.05.2025 CM(M) No.233/2024 NASREENA RASHID BANDAY …PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate. Vs. GOVT. OF J&K AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - None for R1 to R4. Mr. J. H. Reshi, Advocate-for R5 to R8 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order dated 29th June, 2024, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pulwama, (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court”), whereby, during the pendency of the reference made by the Collector to the aforesaid Court, the deposited amount of compensation has been released in favour of respondents No.5 to 7 as also in favour of the petitioner. 2) It appears that two separate writ petitions came to be filed by the petitioner and private respondents No.5 to 7 before this Court. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein bearing WP(C) No.1542/2022, she had sought a direction upon the Collector, Land Acquisition, Pulwama (respondent No.3 herein) to release compensation in respect CM(M) No.233/2024 Page No. 2 of 7 of land measuring 03 kanals and 10 marlas under Khasra No.3335/2603 situated in Mouza Awantipora Tral, which she claims to have purchased from respondent No.8 by virtue of sale deed dated 28th June, 2016 registered on 29th June, 2016. 3) In the writ petition filed by private respondents No.5 to 7 bearing WP(C) No.2055/2022, a direction was sought upon respondent No.3 herein to refer the matter to District Judge, Pulwama, in terms of Section 18 read with Section 31 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act for determination of compensation and area of the acquired land of the petitioners therein (respondents No.5 to 7 herein) for which compensation is payable to them under law. They also sought a direction upon the Collector to deposit the undisbursed amount of compensation of Rs.69,58,873/ in respect of the acquired land measuring 15 kanals and 13 marlas under Khasra No.3819/3345/2603 and 3671/335/2603 situated at Awantipora as also to deposit Rs.7,52,412/ on account of compensation in respect of trees/plants with the Court of Principal District Judge, Pulwama, along with statutory interest. It is pertinent to mention here that the land, which was subject matter of the aforesaid two writ petitions was acquired for establishment of All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the Collector Land Acquisition made an award CM(M) No.233/2024 Page No. 3 of 7 in respect of the acquired land in which name of the petitioner did not figure. 4) Both the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 25.08.2023, with the following directions: (I) Petitioner Nasreena Rashid Banday shall be at liberty to file an application before the respondent Collector seeking reference of the dispute relating to her entitlement/ apportionment in the compensation assessed in terms of Section 31 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act and in case any such reference is sought, the same shall be forwarded by the Collector to the Principal District Judge, Pulwama, for adjudication on merits in accordance with law. (II) The writ petitioners of WP(C) No.2055/2022 are at liberty to approach the respondent Collector Land Acquisition to seek reference under Section 18 read with Section 31 of the Act and in case any such reference is sought, the same shall be forwarded to the Principal District Judge, Pulwama, for adjudication on merits in accordance with law. (III) The respondent Collector Land Acquisition shall deposit the undisbursed compensation along with interest with the Reference Court. 5) It seems that pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the Collector made reference to the Reference Court and the undisbursed amount of compensation was also deposited with the said Court. It also appears that two applications came to be filed before the Reference Court for release of award amount that was deposited by the Collector before the said Court. One application was filed by the private respondents seeking release of compensation amount of Rs.59,08,122/ in their favour and the other application was filed by the petitioner for release of CM(M) No.233/2024 Page No. 4 of 7 compensation with regard to land measuring 03 kanals and 10 marlas, which according to her was purchased by her from respondent No.8. Both these applications came to be decided by the learned Reference Court in terms of the impugned order dated 29.06.2023, whereby the deposited sum to the extent of entitlement of private respondents No.5 to 7 has been released in their favour whereas the share of private respondent No.8 has not been released in his favour. The share of private respondent No.8 has been released in favour of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that compensation to the extent of only 11.5 marlas of land has been directed to be released in favour of the petitioner, who claims to be owner of land measuring 03 kanals 10 marlas out of the acquired land. 6) Aggrieved of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Reference Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition on the grounds that it was not open to the learned Reference Court to release compensation amount in favour of private respondents No.5 to 7 because the issue regarding entitlement of the petitioner is yet to be determined which can be done only after trial of the case. It has been contended that by allowing the private respondents No.5 to 7 to get whole of the deposited amount of compensation released in their favour, a grave prejudice has been caused to the rights CM(M) No.233/2024 Page No. 5 of 7 of the petitioner. It has been contended that since the petitioner is owner of land measuring 03 kanals 10 marlas, as such, she is entitled to compensation for whole of this land and not in respect of 11.5 marlas only, as has been done by the learned Reference Court. It has been contended that without deciding the reference in accordance with law, it was not open to the learned Reference Court to release the amount of compensation in favour of private respondents No.5 to 7. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 8) If we have a look at the impugned order passed by the learned Reference Court, it comes to the fore that the Collector has found private respondents entitled to compensation only in respect of land measuring 04 kanals and 17 marlas and not in respect of land measuring 15 kanals and 13 marlas, which they are claiming by virtue of the reference made at their behest. It appears that out of 04 kanals and 17 marlas of land belonging to the private respondents, their entitlement on pro-rata basis has been found to be 01 kanal and 8.5 marlas each in favour of respondents No.5 to 7 and 11.5 marlas in favour of respondent No.8, meaning thereby that the Collector has deposited the compensation in respect of the land belonging CM(M) No.233/2024 Page No. 6 of 7 to private respondents No.5 to 8 in the aforesaid ratio before the learned Reference Court. The petitioner, who claims her entitlement to the compensation through respondent No.8, at this stage is, therefore, entitled to receive compensation which has been deposited in respect of the land falling to the share of respondent No.8 only. 9) The question whether private respondents No.5 to 8 are entitled to compensation for whole of the land measuring 15 kanals and 13 marlas is subject matter of determination before the learned Reference Court in the reference made at the behest of respondents No.5 to 8. If their reference is accepted and they are held entitled to compensation for entire chunk of land measuring 15 kanals and 13 marlas, obviously the petitioner herein would get compensation in respect of whole of the land measuring 03 kanals and 10 marlas, which she has purchased from respondent No.8 and in case the reference of respondents No.5 to 8 is not accepted, the petitioner cannot claim more than what has been assessed by the Collector in favour of respondent No.8, through whom she claims her rights. 10) It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the learned Reference Court has released the amount of compensation that was earmarked for respondent No.8 and has not released the amount of compensation for whole of the land CM(M) No.233/2024 Page No. 7 of 7 measuring 03 kanals and 10 marlas, which the petitioner had purchased from respondent No.8. The petitioner cannot claim compensation which has been assessed by the Collector in respect of portion of the acquired land which fell to the share of respondents No.5 to 7. Her claim to compensation is restricted to the entitlement of respondent No.8, from whom she has purchased a portion of the acquired land. Thus, she cannot claim that the share of compensation earmarked for respondents No.5 to 7 should be put on hold till the reference is decided by the learned Reference Court. the contention of the petitioner is, therefore, without any substance. 11) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Reference Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall cease to be in operation. 12) No order as to costs. 13) A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Reference Court for information. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 23.05.2025 “Bhat Altaf” Whether the judgment is reportable: YES Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 23.05.2025 02:29