Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3489 (JK)

BASHIR AHMED v. U T OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPTT AND OTHERS

WP(C)/2439/2022 · 2026-09-30

Shahzad Azeem

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2439/2022 Bashir Ahmed, age 68 years S/o Sh. Ahmed Khan, R/o Village Ranjan (Loaki), Tehsil Bhalwal District Jammu. Date of pronouncement: 30.09.2026 Date of uploading: 30.09.2026 …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shayan Chauhan, Advocate Vs 1. UT of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Commissioner Secretary to Government, PWD (R&B) Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. 4. Collector Land Acquisition, 220 KV, PDD, System and Operation Wing, Jammu. 5. Chief Engineer, O&M Cr-II, Jammu and Kashmir Power Transmission Corporation Limited (JKPTCL), Jammu. 6. Executive Engineer, Transmission Line, Maintenance Division (TLMD-VIII), Amhedkar Chowk, Railway Road, Jammu. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Malvika Gupta, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. Meharban Singh, AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 30.09.2026 1. Despite the parties being not at variance insofar as taking over of the land of the petitioner by the respondents for installing the towers is concerned, but he is still made to run from pillar to post, clamouring for compensation under the relevant provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 [“the Act of 2013”]. Sr. No. 145 2 WP(C) No. 2439/2026 2. On the other hand, Mr. Habib Choudhary, respondent No. 5, Chief Engineer, O&M Cr-II, Jammu and Kashmir Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (JKPTCL), Jammu, present through virtual mode, made a fair statement that in case the petitioner makes up the deficiency already indicated, the case of the petitioner will be considered and settled with due dispatch. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case respondents may process and settle the case for compensation within some time frame. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the pray made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. With the consensus of the parties, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to process and assess the compensation strictly in accordance with statute/law, and, pay the compensation within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondents. 6. Disposed of, accordingly. (Shahzad Azeem) Judge Jammu 30.09.2026 Mihul Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No