J&K High Court Refuses To Reopen 2011 BSF Land Acquisition, Says Mere Allegations Of Irregularities Cannot Undo Concluded Proceedings

The Court observed that a challenge brought more than 12 years after the award, without demonstrating any legally sustainable ground for such delay, cannot be used to unsettle concluded acquisition proceedings.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by retired Lieutenant Colonel Yesh Paul Sharma against the dismissal of his writ petition challenging the acquisition of land at Tehsil Sunderbani, for establishment of the Border Security Force's Sector Headquarters. The appellant had questioned the acquisition, revenue records, apportionment and disbursement of compensation, and alleged that certain parcels of land had not been released as claimed.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M.A. Chowdhary dismissed the appeal, observing that “mere allegations of irregularities in the acquisition proceedings or disbursement of compensation, without anything more, cannot be a ground to reopen an acquisition which has culminated into a final award since 18.04.2011.”

Background

The acquisition concerned 236 kanals and 13 marlas of land for establishment of the BSF Sector Headquarters. The proceedings commenced with a notification under Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990, issued in March 2006. The Collector Land Acquisition subsequently passed the final award fixing compensation at ₹1,60,000 per kanal, along with jabrana at the rate of 50 per cent.

The appellant's grievance primarily concerned 64 kanals of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1656, 1658 and 1670. He questioned the legality of the acquisition, the correctness of the revenue records relied upon by the authorities, the assessment and payment of compensation, and the alleged failure to release certain parcels of land. He also sought de-notification and restoration of land, an inquiry into the alleged irregularities and payment of compensation claimed to be due.

The writ court, while examining the matter, had summoned the Collector Land Acquisition, Defence, Rajouri-Poonch, along with the relevant acquisition record to explain the apportionment and payment of compensation.

The record revealed that the appellant's father, Badri Nath, along with his two brothers, Tej Ram and Paras Ram, held one-third share each in the land falling to their family's share of 32 kanals. It further showed that 80 per cent of the compensation payable against the respective shares had been paid.

In particular, ₹15,70,133 had been paid to Badri Nath through a cheque dated February 3, 2008. The apportionment statement bore his signature in the column meant for the payees, and there was nothing on record to indicate that the amount had been received under protest. The remaining 20 per cent, amounting to ₹3,92,533, was lying deposited with the Collector, as Badri Nath had not approached the authority for its release.

The writ court also noted that Badri Nath had died on December 25, 2022, whereas the writ petition was instituted in June 2023 in his name, without his affidavit or signature. It dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant could not seek to reopen the concluded acquisition proceedings in the manner attempted.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Division Bench, reiterating allegations concerning discrepancies in revenue records, the extent of land taken into possession, non-compliance with acquisition procedures and irregularities in compensation. He also relied upon an agreement concerning release of a portion of the acquired land and the judgment in Rattan Chand and Others v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others.

The respondents opposed the appeal, contending that the acquisition had concluded with the award and that the record established payment of 80 per cent of the compensation to the appellant's father without any recorded protest.

Court's Observation

The Division Bench held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the Single Judge's judgment warranting interference in the intra-court appeal.

The Court emphasised that the acquisition proceedings had commenced in 2006 and culminated in the final award dated April 18, 2011, whereas the writ petition challenging the acquisition, award, revenue entries and compensation was instituted only in June 2023.

Finding no justifiable explanation for invoking writ jurisdiction after such a considerable lapse of time, the Bench held that the acquisition could not be reopened merely on the basis of allegations of procedural irregularities.

The Court also examined the appellant's claim insofar as it related to his father's share in the acquired land. It noted that Badri Nath had received 80 per cent of the compensation payable against his share and that the relevant apportionment statement bore his signatures acknowledging receipt.

The Bench observed that the appellant had failed to place any material on record warranting a different conclusion from that reached by the writ court. It further held that any grievance concerning the quantum or apportionment of compensation had to be pursued through the remedies provided under law.

“The appellant cannot seek to invalidate the entire acquisition proceedings merely by raising such a grievance, particularly when his father had received a substantial portion of the compensation without any recorded protest,” the Court observed.

Rejecting the challenge based on allegedly outdated revenue records and the contention that the land taken over did not correspond with the land covered by the award, the Bench held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any legal error in the findings of the Single Judge.

The Court also declined to accept the appellant's reliance on the decision in Rattan Chand and Others v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, observing that a judgment rendered in another writ petition on its own facts could not, by itself, establish that the judgment under appeal was erroneous.

Significantly, the Bench distinguished the claim relating to the unpaid 20 per cent of compensation from the appellant's attempt to reopen the entire acquisition. It noted that ₹3,92,533 payable to Badri Nath remained deposited with the Collector Land Acquisition and could be claimed by his legal heirs upon establishing their entitlement.

The Court observed that “the legal heirs of the deceased Badri Nath may approach the competent authority for release of the said amount upon establishing their entitlement in accordance with law.” It further clarified that any permissible grievance concerning assessment or apportionment of compensation could be pursued before the competent forum under the applicable statutory provisions.

The Bench thus held that the availability of such remedies could not be used as a basis for invoking writ jurisdiction to reopen the entire acquisition proceedings.

Dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's judgment. However, it clarified that dismissal of the appeal would not preclude the legal heirs of Badri Nath from approaching the competent authority for release of the remaining compensation or availing any other remedy available to them under law.

Appearances:

Appellant appeared in person.

Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel Karan Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli and other counsel for the respondents.