Encroached land auctioned, bidder’s money retained for 15 yrs
*Says Authority can’t take advantage of own wrong
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Feb 26: In a scathing judgment exposing serious administrative lapses and institutional unfairness, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has strongly reprimanded the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) for auctioning land allegedly under encroachment, retaining a citizen’s money for more than 15 years without delivering possession and thereafter attempting to penalize the allottee for circumstances created entirely by the Authority’s own failure.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
Moreover, the High Court imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on JDA—Rs 25,000 for misleading the court, recoverable from the responsible officers after inquiry, and Rs 25,000 for unjustified retention of the petitioner’s money and prolonged delay.
The judgment by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal came in a petition filed by Changa Ram, a resident of Tehsil Marh, district Jammu, whose legal battle began after participating in a 2011 public auction conducted by JDA for land measuring 5.38 kanals at Chinore Chowk, Bantalab.
The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, offering Rs 41 lakh per kanal, taking the total bid value to more than Rs 2.20 crore. Acting upon the Letter of Intent issued by JDA, he deposited Rs 5 lakh as earnest money and subsequently paid Rs 20.50 lakh as the first installment.
However, the dispute began almost immediately when the petitioner visited the site and discovered that the land put to auction was not vacant as represented but was already under encroachment. According to the pleadings placed before the court, the land contained pucca structures, lanes and access gates, raising serious doubts about whether the Authority itself possessed the entire auctioned property.
The petitioner approached officials and sought removal of encroachments and re-measurement before paying the remaining amount, asserting that payment could not reasonably be demanded for land whose possession was uncertain.
The High Court noted that instead of resolving the issue, JDA issued a revised communication months later claiming that an earlier payment schedule contained an oversight and demanding substantially higher payments. The petitioner maintained that he could not be compelled to deposit crores of rupees for land that was admittedly encroached and not in the Authority’s possession. Despite repeated representations, inspections and assurances from officials, possession was never handed over, while the amount deposited by the bidder remained with JDA year after year.
Justice Nargal observed that official records and departmental notings revealed that encroachment issues were known within the Authority. Material placed before the High Court indicated that encroachments had been reported as early as 2008-09, well before the auction notice was issued. Measurement exercises conducted later acknowledged shortage of land and existence of permanent structures within the auctioned site. Even affidavits filed by senior JDA officials admitted absence of clear records showing whether the land was free from encumbrances at the time of auction.
Rejecting the Authority’s defence that the petitioner had defaulted in payment, the High Court held that once encroachment came to the bidder’s knowledge, he could not legally be compelled to deposit the remaining amount until the Authority discharged its obligation of delivering clear and vacant land. The judgment records that the petitioner promptly informed JDA about the encroachment in April 2011 itself, an assertion that was never specifically denied by the respondents.
Justice Nargal observed that the Authority had effectively auctioned an encroached plot, induced the petitioner to part with his hard-earned money, retained that amount for more than 15 years and then attempted to shift blame onto the allottee by invoking technical clauses relating to payment defaults and forfeiture. Such conduct, the High Court held, was impermissible for a Public Authority expected to function transparently and fairly.
The High Court made strong remarks on the role of JDA emphasizing that it functions as trustees of public resources and must ensure that land offered in public auction is free from encumbrances. A bidder, the High Court said, must be given full disclosure enabling an informed decision and concealment or failure to verify possession before auction amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.
Highlighting the prolonged hardship caused to the petitioner, the High Court remarked that JDA had placed itself in a “win-win situation” by neither allotting the land nor refunding the money, thereby unjustly enriching itself while the citizen remained deprived both of property and funds. The judgment noted that the petitioner’s money remained locked with the Authority since 2011, during which period he was denied both possession and the financial benefit of his investment.
The High Court also expressed concern over inconsistent stands taken by the Authority regarding the timing of encroachment. While one position suggested encroachment occurred later, departmental records acknowledged existence of permanent structures, leading the High Court to conclude that responsibility for the dispute squarely lay with the Authority.
Calling the case a clear example of administrative unfairness, the High Court held that forfeiture provisions could not be invoked mechanically where the alleged default was a direct consequence of the Authority’s own lapse. A public body, the judgment emphasized, cannot rely upon technicalities to defeat legitimate rights after accepting and retaining substantial consideration from a citizen.
After examining the entire record, the High Court allowed the petition and directed JDA to proceed with the allotment process by calculating the sale consideration strictly on the basis of rates prevailing at the time of the original allotment in 2011 rather than present market prices.
The Authority has been ordered to prepare detailed calculation sheets reflecting the amount payable for the available 5.01 kanals of encumbrance-free land and to allot equivalent land in the same vicinity in lieu of the portion affected by encroachment so that the petitioner receives the full extent originally auctioned.
The petitioner has been granted one month to deposit the balance amount once calculations are communicated, following which JDA must complete formalities and hand over possession of the land free from encumbrances within the stipulated time.
Taking serious note of misleading positions and prolonged inaction, the High Court imposed costs of Rs 50,000 upon JDA—Rs 25,000 for adopting contradictory stands before the court and another Rs 25,000 for unjustified retention of the petitioner’s money for over 15 years. The High Court directed that responsibility for misleading affidavits be fixed upon concerned officers after proper inquiry.
Advocate Himanshu Beotra appeared for the petitioner while as Advocates Sachin Dogra and Rahul Parihar appeared for the Jammu Development Authority.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
