Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh at on Friday upheld orders directing recovery of over Rs 2.61 crore from a landowner in an Anantnag land acquisition dispute, holding that no person can be allowed to retain public money beyond lawful entitlement, and that courts possess inherent powers under law to rectify excess payments even after an award has attained finality.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed a petition filed by Ali Mohammad Dar of Sangam, Anantnag, challenging orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag. The judge had directed recovery of ₹2,61,34,972 along with six percent interest after finding duplication in compensation disbursement related to acquisition of land for the Srinagar-Jammu National Highway four-laning project.
The court ruled that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked merely because another view is possible and interference is warranted only in cases involving patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity.
The dispute arose from acquisition of 6 kanals and 2 marlas of land along with structures at Sangam, Bijbehara, for the highway expansion project undertaken by the National Highways Authority of India.
A reference award passed on July 15, 2014 had granted compensation including Rs 30 lakh per kanal for the land, over Rs 155 lakh for “Shane Kashmir Passenger Oriented Wayside Amenities Project,” compensation for proposed structures, reinstallation of a petrol outlet and loss of earnings.
The petitioner argued that an amount of Rs 1.02 crore paid earlier towards demolition of structures was independent of the compensation awarded and therefore could not be adjusted. It was also argued that once the award had attained finality up to the Supreme Court, the trial court had become functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to order recovery.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court observed that the proceedings before the trial court did not amount to reopening or modifying the award but were limited to correcting an inadvertent duplication in payment and ensuring implementation of the award “in its true letter and spirit.”
The judgment emphasized that Section 151 CPC preserves the inherent powers of courts to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice even after the conclusion of proceedings. The court said such powers can be exercised to rectify mistakes leading to unjust enrichment.
“The retention of the excess amount by the petitioner would clearly amount to unjust enrichment,” the court observed, adding that public funds cannot be permitted to remain with a private party beyond lawful entitlement.
Justice Nargal further held that Section 17-B of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act itself contemplates recovery of excess payments and provides a statutory mechanism for adjustment and refund of surplus compensation. The provision, the court said, embodies the doctrine of restitution and reinforces that compensation is governed by strict legal entitlement rather than bounty.
The court also upheld imposition of 6 percent interest on the recoverable amount, observing that restitution is not confined merely to return of the principal sum but also includes compensation for the benefit enjoyed by the recipient during the period of wrongful retention.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that no person can enrich himself inequitably at the expense of public revenue.
In strong remarks against the petitioner, the court observed that filing of the review petition and later invoking Article 227 jurisdiction appeared to be tactics aimed at avoiding deposit of excess public money despite detailed findings by the trial court.
It strictly directed the petitioner to deposit the excess amount along with interest within one month, failing which the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Land Revenue Act. The petition was dismissed as “devoid of merit.”
