The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently delivered a significant judgment in a case concerning land acquisition and compensation. In this case, the petitioners sought compensation for land taken over by the government several decades ago for the construction of the Shalteng Irrigation Canal.
The case, titled Ghulam Ahmad Bhat & Others vs. State of J&K and Others, revolved around the petitioners’ demand for compensation for their land, which had been occupied by the government without payment. The judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar directed the respondents to pay the determined compensation along with interest as per the final award passed by the Collector.
This judgment is significant as it emphasizes the sanctity of property rights, even after a significant lapse of time. The court rejected the respondents’ contention that the petitioners were not entitled to compensation due to the long duration since the land was taken over. It was noted that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
The court observed that no amount of delay could extinguish a person’s right to property, and the State cannot claim adverse possession over private land. This judgment reinforces the principle that the State must follow the due process of law for land acquisition and compensation, upholding the property rights of citizens.
Case Details
| Case Title | Judges | Lawyers | Date of Order |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ghulam Ahmad Bhat & Others vs. State of J&K and Others | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar | Mr. Syed Riyaz Khawar, Advocate, with Mr. Aabid Hamid, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Jahangir Dar, GA for Respondents | 22.12.2023 |
Key Legal Points and Findings
- Right to Property: The court reaffirmed the right to property as a constitutional right under Article 300A.
- Compensation for Land Acquisition: The respondents are liable to pay compensation for the land acquired, regardless of the time elapsed since acquisition.
- State’s Claim of Adverse Possession Rejected: The State cannot claim adverse possession over private property.
- Continuing Cause of Action: The denial of the right to property constitutes a continuing cause of action, and no delay can bar compensation claims.
- Legal and Human Right: The right to property is both a legal and human right.
Timeline of Events in the Case
- 1978-79: Land taken over by the government.
- 28.01.2010: Tentative award passed recommending compensation.
- 23.06.2010: Award approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar.
- 2015: Initial writ petition disposed of by High Court.
- 15.12.2017: Supreme Court remands the case for fresh decision.
- 22.12.2023: Final judgment delivered by the High Court, directing compensation payment.
This ruling provides a clear precedent for similar cases involving long-standing disputes over land acquisition and reinforces the principle of upholding constitutional rights in such matters.
