Srinagar: Emphasising that disputes relating to ownership and apportionment of land acquisition compensation must be decided by a civil court and not in writ proceedings, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside a Single Judge’s order directing exclusive payment of compensation to a private respondent in a Baramulla land acquisition case.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem allowed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Abdul Aziz Bhat and others, holding that issues concerning ownership, co-ownership and apportionment of compensation were already pending before appropriate forums.
The Bench observed that where disputes arise regarding entitlement to, or distribution of, compensation, the matter must be referred to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Vinod Kumar vs District Magistrate, Mau, the court noted that such disputes cannot be decided summarily by administrative authorities.
The Bench further held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to determine complicated questions of title, particularly when such issues are already pending before civil courts.
The appeal challenged an order dated March 11, 2025, passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition, directing the Collector, Land Acquisition Baramulla, to release compensation for acquired land within eight weeks, failing which interest at the rate of six per cent per annum was to be paid.
The dispute pertains to land situated at Tapper Waripora, acquired for the widening of the Srinagar–Baramulla National Highway.
The writ petitioner had approached the court alleging that although an award had been passed, compensation for the acquired land and structures had not been released.
However, the appellants, who were not impleaded before the Single Judge, argued that the land was not exclusively owned by the writ petitioner but constituted joint, unpartitioned ancestral property shared by several legal heirs. They contended that the respondent had obtained a title certificate on the basis of a purported private partition, which, according to them, never took place.
The appellants also informed the court that a civil suit concerning partition, possession and declaration of ownership was already pending before a Sub-Judge at Pattan. Proceedings under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act seeking adjudication of apportionment of compensation were also pending before the competent authority.
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench observed that these material facts had not been disclosed before the Single Judge.
Finding merit in the appeal, the court held that directing release of the entire compensation amount to one party without hearing the other claimants violated principles of natural justice and adversely affected their rights.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the impugned order to the extent that it directed exclusive payment of compensation to the writ petitioner. It directed the Collector, Land Acquisition Baramulla, to keep the compensation amount in deposit and proceed strictly in accordance with law.
The court clarified that all questions relating to title, partition and apportionment of compensation shall be decided by the competent civil court.
