Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Mar 2: The High Court today directed that allottees of the Government land are entitled to one-third compensation if the same is acquired under land acquisition act for the purpose of public use.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the plea of land owners seeking full compensation in lieu of the land acquired by the Government. Since the land in question was allotted to them by the Government and the court said where a land to be acquired is owned directly by the Government as a proprietor, the market value of the land to be acquired cannot form part of the amount of compensation to be awarded except to the extent of one-third share amount.
“…meaning thereby that in a case where ownership of the land vests with the Government, only one-third of the market value of the land is to be paid as compensation to the interested persons. It is in light of this provision that Government instructions vide Circular dated 23.02.1980 have been issued by the Revenue Department”.
Court while dealing with the case said the Revenue extracts placed on record by the petitioner-allottees, clearly reflect that the State is shown as the owner of the land in question. “Even in the apportionment statement annexed to the final award, the name of the owner is shown as State whereas in the column of tenant, the names of the petitioners have been reflected. The petitioners therefore, are not absolute owners of the land in question. They have only the right of possession/cultivation of the land in question”, read the judgment.
The counsel for the -allottees vehemently argued that the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, cannot be pressed into service for determining the entitlement of the petitioners to the compensation as the said Schedule is applicable to the payment of amount of compensation under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act.
Court, however, made it clear that the petitioners are allottees under Government order No. LB/7-C of 1958, meaning thereby they have been conferred the right of cultivation of the land and are not proprietors or full owners of the land.
“The State still continues to be the owner of the land in question. The question that arises for determination is whether or not the petitioners, who are only tenants of the land in question, are entitled to full compensation”, Justice Dhar questioned.
The court concluded the petitioners have a limited right of possession and cultivation of the land in and as such, they cannot be paid the full compensation in view of the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Had it been a case where proprietary rights in respect of the land in question would have been conferred upon the petitioners’ court added then Circular dated 23.02.1980 to the extent it curtails the amount of compensation payable to certain categories of interested persons, could not have come in the way of the petitioners.
“Admittedly the petitioners are not the absolute owners/proprietors of the land in question therefore, they cannot claim full compensation. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition, as such, the same is dismissed”, Court said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
