Sr. No. 29 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2976/2023 CM No. 7135/2023 Date of pronouncement: 27.10.2025 Uploaded on: 30 .10.2025 Miran Baksh …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Irfan Khan, Advocate V/s UOI and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, Advocate Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 1. By this petition, the petitioner herein is seeking a direction upon the respondent to pay rental compensation/usage charges alongwith arrears to the petitioner on account of use and occupation of his proprietary land measuring 06 kanals 08 marlas falling under Khasra No. 1250/528 situated in village Thruoo, tehsil Thruoo District Reasi, from the date of actual possession i.e. 2015 till the same is acquired in terms the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, with a further direction upon the respondents to pay compensation for the fruit and non-fruit bearing trees, which, as per the petitioner, have been damaged by the respondents by dumping debris over the land of the petitioner. WP (C) No. 2976/2023 2. Pursuant to an indent submitted by respondent No. 4 vide No. 2100/RAM/LA/110/E2 dated 17.08.2010, for acquisition of land for construction/improvement of Reasi-Arnas-Mahore road for existing Class-V to National Highway double lane, acquisition process was initiated in the year 2012, pursuant to issuance of Section 4(1) notification dated 08.01.2012 under the J&K Land Acquisition Act SVT 1990, the construction of aforesaid road reached the village of the petitioner in the year 2015. 3. As per the petitioner, while respondent No. 4 was carrying out the construction of Reasi-Arnas-Mahore GREF Road, the land of the petitioner was being used by GREF Authorities as dumping yard for debris. The petitioner was assured by the respondents that he would be suitably compensated for the same. It is further stated that the fruit bearing trees of the petitioner were damaged, as such, an application was made before respondent No. 3 on 08.08.2015, seeking compensation for the same, wherein petitioner had specifically stated that he had planted a nursery in the year 2001, after getting plants from Horticulture department, the said plantation was destroyed by dumping the debris on the land of the petitioner by respondent No. 4. 4. It is further contended that the respondent No. 3 directed the concerned Patwari to submit a report on the application of the petitioner. The Patwari concerned, after visiting the spot, submitted his report, wherein, details of the fruit and non-fruit bearing trees, damaged during the dumping of debris by respondent No. 4, was specified. It has been stated in the report WP (C) No. 2976/2023 that nine (09) types of fruit bearing trees, which amounts to one hundred thirty (130) in total and seven (07) types of non-fruit bearing trees, were destroyed by respondent No. 4. 5. The petitioner approached respondent for seeking compensation but no heed was paid to the repeated representations of the petitioner. Subsequently respondent No. 3 vide communication No. SDM/TD/474/2021 dated 08.12.2021, requested respondent No. 4 to place an indent for acquisition of the land of the petitioner, so that the petitioner could be suitably compensated. However, till date no indent has been placed by respondent No. 4 nor the petitioner has been compensated. 6. Per contra in the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 4. In the reply it is stated that on receipt of letter of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dharmari dated 11.05.2022, a ground verification of the land was carried out by the field staff and it was found that the land has not been used for dumping of muck by respondent No. 4. The application submitted by the petitioner has been found inappropriate and ineligible to be compensated for the said land. The plea regarding disposal of muck/rent with respect to the land of the petitioner is also denied. 7. Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI has further states that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have denied any damage being caused to the land of the petitioner for which he can be compensated. Moreover, there are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into by way of instant writ petition. WP (C) No. 2976/2023 8. In the reply filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 it is stated that the application of the petitioner with regard to damage caused to his fruit bearing trees allegedly caused by GREF during road construction, was received and forwarded to Horticulture Department on 13.06.2015, for appropriate action. The Sub Divisional Magistrate sought a detailed report from Tehsildar, Thuroo, who has stated that the damage to the agricultural land and trees (fruit bearing and Non-fruit bearing) has been caused by respondent No. 4 during the construction of Reasi-Arnas-Mahore Road. 9. It is further stated that after the submission of the report, which clearly reflect the loss being suffered by the petitioner, the matter was brought to the attention of respondent No. 4, so that the petitioner could be compensated suitably. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant petition may be disposed of, at this stage, with a direction to the respondents to conduct verification of the land of the petitioner measuring 06 kanals 08 marlas falling under Khasra No. 1250/528 situated in village Thruoo, tehsil Thruoo District Reasi, so as to assess the damage caused to it. 12. Learned counsels for the respondents have stated at Bar that they are not averse to the proposition being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. WP (C) No. 2976/2023 13. Be that as it may, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Reasi, to conduct joint verification in presence of the respondents as well as petitioner within a period of one month from the date of passing this order, so that the petitioner, if, at all, eligible for any compensation for the damage caused to his land, can be compensated suitably. It is further made clear that in case any damage is found to be caused to the land of the petitioner after due verification he would be suitably compensated. 14. Disposed of. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Jammu 27.10.2025 Mahavir Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: No