Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Kaka Ram vs State Of J&K & Ors on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Chief Justice, Sindhu Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Sr. No. 211
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case : OWP No. 1555 of 2018
Kaka Ram .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Sh. Rahul Pant, Sr.
Advocate with Sh. Anirudh
Sharma, Advocate
V/s
State of J&K & ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Sh. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
01. Heard Sh. Rahul Pant, Senior counsel assisted by Sh. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. S. S. Nanda, Senior AAG for the respondents.
02. The petitioner through the medium of this writ petition wants a Mandamus to be issued to the respondents to provide him alternative commercial site equivalent to the value of 15 marlas of land which has been acquired so that he may establish/shift his small scale industrial unit.
03. The petitioner alleges that 15 marlas of land which is part of Khasra No. 367-min situate at Nowabad, Jammu was leased out by the State to the petitioner. He established a small industrial unit on the said land. The said land has been acquired with the result that the petitioner 2 OWP No. 1555/2018 has been uprooted from his business. Therefore, he wants that an alternative commercial site be allotted to him.
04. The petitioner is not disputing the acquisition proceedings in any manner nor has shown his dissatisfaction to the compensation which has been offered to him.
05. The petitioner simply wants an alternative site which is not legally possible. The land of the petitioner was acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act which do not provide for providing any alternative site or land in lieu of the acquired land. It only provides for the payment of compensation to be determined as per the provisions of the Act.
06. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the past, as a policy, the respondents have been providing land in lieu of the acquired land so as to rehabilitate the persons, who have been uprooted.
07. The petitioner cannot be provided alternative land in lieu of the acquired land in the absence of any provision to this effect. It would be going beyond the Statutory provisions if any such relief is granted. If any illegality has been committed in the past, it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. The petitioner is unable to show any statutory provision where under he can be provided with land in exchange of the acquired land.
08. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar v. District Magistrate, Agra and others, 2005 (2) AWC 1650 (FB) while considering a similar proposition with regard to extending employment to one family member of the land holder whose land was acquired held that the acquiring body for whose benefits the land is 3 OWP No. 1555/2018 acquired is not bound to extend such additional benefit as the Act does not contain any provision for granting such additional benefits other than the compensation admissible under the Act and since the Act is self-contained Code in itself, any Government Order, Circular or the Policy granting such additional benefits would be violative of the Act and the Article 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, are liable to be ignored. In short, it was held that no additional benefit other than the compensation as provided under the Act is admissible to the land holders or the persons interested for the land acquired under the Act.
09. In Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, it has been laid down that if a thing is required to be done in a particular manner under any Act, it has to be done in the said manner and not at all. In view of the above principle, the petitioner is only entitled to compensation for the acquired land and not any other land in lieu thereof.
10. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner for providing any alternative land to the petitioner in lieu of the acquired land.
11. The writ petition, as such, is devoid of merit and is dismissed alongwith connected applications.
(SINDHU SHARMA) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
23.03.2021
Ram Murti
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
RAM MURTI
2021.03.25 15:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document