Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Ramzan Dar vs Union Territory Of Jk And Others on 6 June, 2024
Author: Justicejaved Iqbal Wani
Bench: Justicejaved Iqbal Wani
Sr. No.07
Regular List
IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 488/2023
MOHAMMAD RAMZAN DAR ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. N.H. Shah, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Suwaiba, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF JK AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Alla-ud-Din Ganie, AAG
Mr. Furqan Sofi, GA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEJAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
06.06.2024 Oral:
1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution implores for the following reliefs:-
"a) ISSUE a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order ordirections, for quashment of impugned PNC proceedings and consideration order dated 09.11.2021 (Annexure- I to the writPetition).
b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS:
commanding the respondents toconclude the proceedings as per land Acquisition Act and Awardbe passed and amount be fixed as per Market rate of the land.
c) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS:
commanding the respondentsto pay the compensation to the petitioner of his land measuring7 Kanals and 9 ½ Marlas @ Rs.70.00 Lacs per Kanal as per the market value....."
2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed and as stated in the petition are that the respondent 4
1|Page WP (C) 488/2023 herein as anIntendingDepartment requested the Collector Land Acquisition, Baramulla to undertake land acquisition proceedings qua land measuring 26 kanals, 5 marlas and 03srs for expansion of the Kansipora Fruit & Vegetable Market having been established in the year 2006 over 44kanals and 14 marlas of land, for the welfare of the general public inasmuch as the infrastructure requirement of the fruit growers of the area. An amount of Rs. 6 crores and 4 lacs in this regard came to be kept at the disposal to the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, by the Intending Department. The Acquisition proceedings came to be undertaken through private negotiations, wherein Rs. 20 lacs per kanal came to be agreed price for the irrigated land. The petitioner's land as well being of the nature of the irrigated kind was also assessed @ Rs. 20 lacs per kanal.
The petitioner, however, in the month of November 2017 approached this Court through OWP No. 1841/2017 and prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS:
commanding therespondents to conclude the proceedings as per LandAcquisition Act and Award be passed and amount befixed as per Market rate of the land.
(ii) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS: commanding therespondents to pay the compensation to the Petitionerof his land measuring 7 Kanals and 9 1/2 Marlas@ Rs.70.00 Lacs per Kanal as per the market value...."
The aforesaid writ was filed and reliefs prayed on the premise that despite undertaking acquisition proceedings qua land measuring 26 kanals, 5 marlas and 03 srs covering the proprietary land of the
2|Page WP (C) 488/2023 petitioner measuring 7 kanals 9 ½ marlas under survey no. 1709 min situated at Kansipora Baramulla as well the Collector though came to be requested to fix the market of the land and pass an appropriate award, the Collector insist for private negotiations and is fixing rates of the land in question on lower side and also paid inadequate part payment to the petitioner, and that, despite expressing dissatisfaction with the procedure adopted by the respondents/Collector and on account of the failure of the respondents to redress the grievances of the petitioner by not fixing the rate of the land as per the market value inasmuch as passing of an appropriate award the filing of the petition got necessitated.
The aforesaid petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 9th April, 2021, directing the Collector, Baramulla to take the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the notification dated 10 th December, 2013 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 to the logical conclusion to the extent of the petitioner by passing the award strictly in accordance with law and rules governing the subject as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
A contempt petition as well subsequently came to be filed by the petitioner herein alleging non-compliance of aforesaid order of the disposal of the petition passed by this Court on 9 th April, 2021, which contempt petition came to be disposed of, upon filing of the statement of facts/compliance report by the respondents/contemnors on the premise that a consideration order dated 9th November, 2021 stands passed in the matter, providinga liberty to the petitioner herein to work out a remedy against the said consideration order and
3|Page WP (C) 488/2023 consequently the petitioner through the medium of the instant petition has thrown challenge to the said consideration order dated 9th November, 2021
3. The petitioner has maintained the instant petition on the following grounds urged in the petition:-
"(a) That as per the Rules framed under the Land AcquisitionAct, for initiating a private Negotiation, it is mandatorythat following persons 1) Deputy commissioner (2)District superintending Engineer (3) Executive Engineerconcerned (4) Concerned District Lever officer and (5)Member Legislative Assembly, are required to bepresent in the Meeting so that the matter is thoroughlydeliberated and proper market value is given to thePetitioner.
However, in the present case no such procedure has been followed, as such, the plea of therespondents that PNC has been conducted cannot betaken as PNC as envisaged under rules.
(b) That Rule 23 of the said Rules provides that whenpecuniary amount of Rs.10.00 Lakhs exceeds thenDeputy commissioner has no jurisdiction, in such asituation also, the respondent was not competent toconduct the private negotiations.
Hence on this countalso, the private negotiations conducted by the Respondents deserves to be quashed.
(c) That it is beaten principle of law that a Statute /Rulegives a power to the authority, those are to be followedin strict sense or not otherwise. It is settled that Stateand its instrumentalities have to act strictly within thefour corners of law and all its activities are governed by Rules, regulations and instructions. In the instant case,the PNC conducted by the respondents is totally against
4|Page WP (C) 488/2023 the Rules, as such the same cannot be taken as PNC asenvisaged under rules.
(d) That the impugned private negotiations conducted bythe Respondent Collector is illegal, bad in the eyes oflaw, violative of the relevant provisions of law, as suchsame is liable to be quashed and set aside.
(e) That the private Negotiations cannot be one sided andLand Acquisition Act and the rules framed therein themechanism for private negotiation is provided andnegotiation cannot be forced to the owner. If negotiationare not carried in accordance with law that has no value in the eyes of law and requires to be ignored. The lawprovides that if a power is given under statute to do athing in a particular manner that is to be done in thesame way.
(f That the respondents have no right to deprive thePetitioner of his property. If they need the property forpublic purposes then they are required to acquire it andpay market value of the land to the petitioner afterfollowing the procedure established by law. It is the dutyof the respondents to take extra care while acquiring anysuch property and the degree of care required to be taken by the State is greater when power of compulsoryacquisition of a private land is exercised. In the instantcase, the act of the respondents in not adhering to themandatory provisions of J&K Land Acquisition Act and fixing the rates as per market value indicates that the respondents have been harash in their approach resultingin great injustice to the petitioner....."
5|Page WP (C) 488/2023
4. Objections to the petition have been filed separately by respondents 1 to 3, 5 & 6 and respondent 4 herein respectively.
In the objections filed by the respondents 1 to 3, 5 & 6, it is being stated that the petitioner has mislead the Court as the land of the petitioner came to be acquired pursuant to the private negotiations meeting held on 15th July, 2014, wherein the rate of the land of the petitioner came to be approved by the Private Negotiations Committee on 15th July, 2014 itself @ Rs. 20 lacs per kanal and said rate of the land came to be accepted and agreed by the petitioner in person in the said meeting without any pressure or coercion and also affixed his thump impression thereon the minutes of the meeting as a token of acceptance thereof. It is further stated in the objections that the petitioner has received the land compensation amount as well without any protest and that after a gap of six years, the petitioner initially filed OWP No. 1841/2017, which came to be disposed of by this Court and consequent to the orders of the Court, the consideration order under challenge in the instant petition came to be passed having found the claim of the petitioner without any merit. It is further stated in the objections that the land of the petitioner came to be acquired after following due procedure envisaged law and the petitioner received the amount of compensation as per the Private Negotiations Decision vide bill Nos'. 14,15, 16, 17, 18,19 dated 08.04.2014, 22.04. 2014, 13.08.2017 & 22.02.2017 respectively and, thus, the petitioner is estopped from maintaining the petition after having participated in the private negotiations and accepted the rates of the land approved therein inasmuch as received the amount of compensation thereof.
6|Page WP (C) 488/2023 In the objections filed by the respondent 4, it is being reiterated that the land of the petitioner came to be acquired through private negotiations held on 15th July, 2014, and that, the petitioner herein received full land compensation thereof amounting to Rs.1,49,50,000/- against proper receipt for his property land measuring 7 kanals, 9 marlas and 03 srs. It is also being stated in the objections that the petitioner received the compensation qua his land from the respondents after participating in the PNC meeting out of his own free will and consent and consequentlyreceived the compensation thereof without any protest. It is being also stated in the objections that the petitioner did not approach this Court with clear hands. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Upon coming up of this petition for consideration on 9 th May, 2024 and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the summoning of the original record of the acquisition proceedings undertaken by the respondents qua the land in question was deemed to be imperative, as a consequence whereof, the counsel for the respondents came to be directed to produce the record of the acquisition proceedings, in response to which, the said record has been made available by the counsel for the respondents.
A bare perusal of the said record tends to show that after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, smvt. 1990, on 10.12.2013 in the matter, the respondents took recourse to the said acquisition proceedings by Private Negotiations in consequence whereof, the land owners including the petitioner herein participated in the said negotiation, wherein, besides the land owners, the members of the committee
7|Page WP (C) 488/2023 consisting of the representative of the Intending Department, Collector, A.C (Revenue Baramulla) Collector, SDM Sopore, Superintending Engineer PWD (R&B) Baramulla, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, Tehsildar Baramulla, Tehsildar Sopore, in addition thereto Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla as its convener were present.
Perusal of the record of the minutes of the meeting of the Private Negotiations Committee held on 15th July, 2014 reveal that the Tehsildar Baramulla therein the meeting had reported that the notified market of the land for the village Kansipora, for 2014-15 as Rs. 19.20 lacs per kanal for irrigated and Rs. 19.80 lacs per kanal for non- irrigated land and consequently the said notified rate of Rs. 19.20 lacs per kanal had been offered to the land owners who, however, demanded higher rates and subsequently, after negotiations, the land owners had agreed to accept the rate of Rs. 20 lacs per kanal as compensation both for irrigated and non-irrigated land in question. The aforesaid agreement arrived at is available on the record of the file, wherein all the members of the committee including the land owners including the petitioner herein in token of the acceptance of the agreed rates have affixed their signatures and thumb impressions.
Further, perusal of the record in general and the reply in particular filed by the respondents also reveal that the petitioner herein stands paid the amount of compensation of Rs.1,49,50,000/- by the respondents for the land in question which contention/averment of the respondents stated in their reply has not been disputed or denied by the petitioner herein.
8|Page WP (C) 488/2023
6. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter that the petitioner has remained associated in the private negotiations having agreed to the rate of compensation assessed and determined for his land during said private negotiations held on 14th July, 2014 inasmuch as also having received amount of compensation for his land lastly on 22nd April, 2017 vide Bill No. 15, the core issue which emerges for consideration of this Court would be as to whether the petitioner can still maintain the instant petition on any grounds whatsoever and seek the reliefs as have been prayed in the petition. The determination of the said issue, however, would not detain this Court in view of the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as "State of Karnataka& Anr. Vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar & Ors"
reported in 2005 (4) SCC page 264, wherein it has been inter alia held that an agreement between the parties pertaining to the land acquisition, as regards the value of the land acquired by the State is binding on the parties so long as such agreement is not set aside in an appropriate proceeding by a Court of law having jurisdiction in relation thereto as such an agreement will remain binding, and that, once an award/compensation has been accepted without any demur, the person aggrieved thereof shall be estopped and precluded from questioning the same.
In view of the aforesaid position of law, the petitioner in the instant case as well cannot maintain the instant petition and be allowed to turn around after having participated in the private negotiations undertaken in the matter by the official respondents, having agreed to the amount of compensation assessed and determined therein inasmuch as also having accepted and received the
9|Page WP (C) 488/2023 amount of compensation on any grounds whatsoever including the one urged in the instant petition that the constitution of the Private Negotiations Committee was defective, not in consonance with the Land Acquisition Rules For Public Purpose.
7. There is yet another angle of the controversy raised in the petition which cannot be overlooked by this Court, that being, that the petitioner admittedly has concealed, suppressed and misrepresented material facts before this Court not only in the instant petition but previously as well while maintaining OWP No. 1841/2017, which petition have had been filed on 13th November, 2017 i.e.admittedly much after the holding of private negotiations dated 15th July, 2014, inasmuch as the receipt of final amount of compensation by the petitioner on 24th April, 2017, vide Bill No. 15, as the petitioner has deliberately chosen to conceal the said material facts in both the petitions and has in the process while maintaining the petitions abusedthe process of law disentitling the petitioner to any relief in the matter as the aforesaid facts of holding of said private negotiations, assessment of compensation of the land in question in presence of the petitioner inasmuch as the receipt of compensation thereof by the petitioner prior to the filing of the petitions constitute material facts and had the said facts been brought into the notice of this Court and disclosed by the petitioner, probably the Court would not have displayed indulgence in the first instance while considering the aforesaid first petition of the petitioner, would have had an effect on the merits of the case of the petitioner set up by him initially in the year 2017 while maintaining OWP No. 1847/2017. 10 | P a g e WP (C) 488/2023
8. It is pertinent to note here that the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner being AIR 2020 Supreme Court 4709 and 2002 (7)SCC page 508. In view of the aforesaid observation and analysis do not lend any support to the case of the petitioner and infact pale into insignificance.
9. For what has been noticed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in the matter more particularly in view of suppression and concealment of aforesaid material facts by the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within three weeks' timefrom today before Registrar Judicial of this Court, whereupon its deposit same shall be credited by the Registry in Account No. 0372040100020529 maintained in the name of "Yateem Khannah, Bemina, Srinagar".
(JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 06.06.2024 ARIF Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 02.07.2024 11 | P a g e WP (C) 488/2023