‘Can’t reopen settled issues for financial gain’
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 17: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition seeking quashment of Private Negotiation Committee (PNC) proceedings and initiation of fresh land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, holding that the petition was a calculated and clever, though hopelessly time barred, attempt to gain unjust enrichment under the 2013 law.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the judgment while dismissing the petition filed by Autar Krishan Dhar, a migrant from Kupwara presently residing at Jagti Township, Jammu.
The petitioner had sought quashing of PNC proceedings dated February 5, 2019, whereby compensation for his land measuring 1 kanal and 4 marlas at village Villagam Doolipoora, Handwara, was fixed at Rs 4.78 lakh. He had also sought directions for fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act and payment of rent for alleged unauthorized occupation of the land since 2003.
The petitioner claimed that the Jal Shakti Department occupied a portion of his land in 2003 for construction of a water reservoir without formal acquisition proceedings or notice. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in 2005 seeking rent, compensation and employment, which was disposed of in 2008 with directions to the authorities to consider his case in accordance with law.
Subsequently, he filed contempt proceedings in 2009 alleging non-compliance of the order. During the pendency of those proceedings, the respondents informed the court that an amount of Rs 3 lakh had already been deposited before the Collector concerned, following which the contempt petition was closed in 2018.
The High Court observed that the petitioner never challenged the closure of contempt proceedings or sought revival of the case, which indicated that he was satisfied with compliance of the earlier directions. “A PNC meeting was subsequently held in February 2019 and the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 4.78 lakh, which the petitioner refused to accept”, the High Court noted.
Rejecting the petitioner’s plea that the PNC meeting was conducted behind his back, the High Court held that the petitioner had been actively pursuing and contesting the matter before authorities since 2005 and therefore could not plead ignorance about the acquisition proceedings or issuance of notice under Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990.
The High Court further observed that the petitioner was trying to circumvent the statutory scheme of the repealed J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 by invoking writ jurisdiction after having failed to avail the statutory remedy of seeking reference against the compensation amount fixed by the authorities.
Justice Nargal held that the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 was a self-contained code providing time-bound remedies and that permitting the petitioner to reopen the issue through a writ petition would amount to doing indirectly what is not permitted to be done directly.
The High Court also rejected the petitioner’s contention seeking retrospective application of the 2013 Act, observing that acquisition proceedings had already commenced in January 2019 under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990, prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Act in the Union Territory after reorganisation.
Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) & Ors. Vs Nisar Ahmad Ganai & Others and Division Bench judgment in Khursheed Ahmad Nazki Versus UT of J&K, the High Court held that proceedings initiated under the repealed J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 would continue under the old law and landowners could not claim compensation under the 2013 Act merely because the award had not been passed before reorganisation.
Concluding that the petition was not a bona fide pursuit of justice but a calculated and clever attempt to secure higher compensation under the 2013 Act, the High Court termed the conduct of the petitioner as gross abuse of process of law and dismissed the petition along with connected applications.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
