J&K&L High Court Orders NHAI To Initiate Acquisition Or Restore Land Illegally Occupied Since 1957 Without Compensation

Justice M. A. Chowdhary underscored that even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it continues to enjoy constitutional protection, and prolonged occupation of private land by public authorities without due process is wholly impermissible in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.

The Court observed that successive transfers of possession of land between government departments cannot legitimise an initial unlawful occupation, nor can the State seek to justify continued possession by citing administrative convenience or passage of time.

It added,

“… The land owners cannot be divested of their property without following due course of law. It is impermissible for public authorities to remain in possession of private land for decades together without resorting to acquisition proceedings or payment of compensation.”

The Court made these observations while allowing a writ petition filed by a Jammu resident whose land had remained under government occupation since 1957 without acquisition or compensation.

Background:

The petitioner had approached the Court claiming ownership over land in Jammu, asserting that the land was taken over by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) in the year 1957 for the purpose of widening the Jammu–Pathankot National Highway, without initiating any acquisition proceedings and without payment of compensation.

It was pleaded that revenue records consistently reflected CPWD's occupation of the land, while ownership continued to vest with the petitioner's predecessors-in-interest. Despite repeated approaches to the revenue authorities, no acquisition proceedings, award or compensation record could be traced.

Over the years, the road and the land beneath it came to be transferred from CPWD to the State Public Works Department and eventually to the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), which is presently utilising the land for development of the Delhi–Amritsar–Katra six-lane Expressway.

The respondents resisted the petition primarily on the grounds of delay and laches, contending that the petitioner had approached the Court after several decades, and further asserted that disputed questions of fact were involved which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

Court's Observations:

Allowing the petition, the High Court noted that the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, upon verification of revenue records, had categorically reported that no acquisition proceedings had ever been conducted and no compensation had ever been paid in respect of the land in question, despite the admitted long-standing possession of government departments.

The Court observed that none of the respondents, including CPWD, PWD or NHAI, had been able to place on record any document demonstrating lawful acquisition, voluntary transfer or payment of compensation, even though possession of the land had remained with public authorities for more than seventy years.

The Bench expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which private land had been appropriated and retained, observing that the landowners were deprived of their landed estate without recourse to the law applicable at the relevant time, whether by acquisition under the prevailing statute or through private negotiations.

In one of its observations the Court remarked,

“It is very strange that the land owners were deprived of their landed estate without resorting to the law of the land. The respondents have remained in possession of the land for more than seventy years, which is wholly impermissible and strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law.”

The Court rejected the plea of delay and laches, holding that illegal occupation of private land constitutes a continuing wrong, and constitutional claims arising from such illegality cannot be defeated merely by the passage of time.

The Bench further observed that the right to property, though no longer fundamental, continues to be a constitutional and human right, and forcible dispossession without authority of law violates not only Article 300-A but also basic principles of fairness, justice and non-arbitrariness.

The Court emphasised that the State cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own failure to follow statutory procedures and cannot legitimise an unlawful act by merely retaining possession for a long period. It reiterated that no person can be deprived of property save by authority of law and that payment of just compensation is an integral facet of lawful acquisition.

In view of the admitted unlawful occupation of the petitioner's land since 1957, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed that the National Highway Authority of India shall either initiate acquisition proceedings by submitting an indent to the competent authority within six weeks or, in the alternative, restore possession of the land to the landowners.

The Court further directed that upon receipt of the indent, the Collector or competent authority shall proceed with acquisition strictly in accordance with the applicable law and within the timelines prescribed under the relevant statute.

Case Title: Ch. Mohd. Sadiq Vs Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment