AUTAR KRISHAN DHAR vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (REVENUE)

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR

WP(C) 1010/2026

CM(2642/2026)

th
Reserved on: 8 May, 2026.
th
Pronounced on: 14 May,2026
th
Uploaded on: 15 May,2026
Whether operative part or full
judgment has been pronounced: Full

Autar Krishan Dhar, Age 65 years
S/o Late Shri Jagger Nath Dhar
R/o Lane No. 22, Block 134, Flat No. 17,
Jagti Township, Nagrota, Jammu.
…Petitioner(s)
Through: M/s Sumir Pandita and Imran Ahmad Rather,
(Through Virtual Mode)
Advocates .
Vs.
...Respondent(s)

1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir ,
through Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu/Srinagar.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara.
3. Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Handwara.

4. Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti Department,
Kashmir.

5. Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Division,
Handwara.
6. Collector (Land Acquisition), Kupwara.

Through:
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Judge.
JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the
following reliefs:


Page 1 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

(I) Quash and set aside the Private Negotiation
Committee (PNC) proceedings dated 05-02-2019,
whereby the compensation for the land of the
petitioner was purportedly fixed as Rs. 4,78,000/-,
as being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the
mandatory provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, and in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
(II) With a prayer to command the respondents to
initiate fresh and proper land acquisition
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, and to determine the
market value and compensation for the land of the
petitioner measuring 1 kanal and 4 marlas under
Survey no. 133, Village Villagam, Doolipoora,
Tehsil Handwara, District Kupwara, strictly in
accordance with Section 26 to 30 of the said Act.
(III) With a further prayer to command the respondents
to pay to the petitioner reasonable rent/rental
compensation for unauthorized use and occupation
of his land measuring 1 kanal and 4 marlas from
the year 2003 till the date of final payment of
compensation, computed on the basis of the
prevailing market rental rates.
(IV) Pass such other and further orders, writs, or
directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the interest of justice. “

BRIEF FACTS:

2) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner claims
originally to be a resident of Village Villagam, Doolipoora, Tehsil

Page 2 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

Handwara, District Kupwara, who migrated to Jammu in the year
1990 due to adverse security conditions in the Valley. He claims to
be the owner of land measuring 4 Kanals and 5 Marlas under Survey
No. 133 at Village Villagam Doolipoora, Tehsil Handwara.
According to him in 2003, the respondent Jal Shakti Department
occupied 1 Kanal and 4 Marlas of the said land for a water reservoir
without any formal acquisition process or notice.
3) Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before
the Jammu Bench of this Court bearing OWP No. 456/2005, which
was disposed of on 03-04-2008 directing the respondents to consider
the case of the petitioner for release of rent as well as compensation
of the land in accordance with law. However, since, the respondents
did not choose to comply the order dated 03-04-2008, the petitioner
filed a contempt petition, bearing CPOWP No. 46/2009. During the
pendency of the said contempt proceedings, the respondents filed a
statement of facts claiming that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs Only) had been deposited with the Additional Deputy
Commissioner/ Collector, Handwara, vide Cheque No.
17808,000051000 dated 25-09-2013, on the basis of which statement
of facts, the contempt petition was closed by the Court vide order
dated 10-09-2018, in the absence of the petitioner.
4) The petitioner further states that aggrieved of the continued
inaction and failure of the respondents to provide lawful
compensation, he filed a representation before the Governor’s
Grievance Cell, Jammu, following which the OSD to Advisor on 14-
12-2018 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara to take
necessary action on merit and to redress the grievance of the
petitioner. Pursuant to the said representation filed in December
2018, a Private Negotiation Committee (for short PNC) meeting was
held on 05-02-2019, whereby the compensation was fixed at Rs.

Page 3 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

4,78,000/-. The petitioner claims this meeting was conducted
without his knowledge.
5) The petitioner further submits that thereafter he was actively
pursuing his case with the respondents, during the course of which,
various inter se communications were issued by the respondents,
and which finally culminated in communication dated 04-07-2025
issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Handwara to
Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, wherein it was revealed for the
first time that a notice under Section 4(1) was purportedly issued by
the Collector on 19-01-2019 and the said file was submitted vide No.
ADCH/LAS/830-31 dated 19-01-2019 for conducting a PNC. He
further submits that the PNC was held on 05-02-2019 without
informing the petitioner; and that a lump sum rate of Rs. 4,78,000/-
was fixed for the land in question. The petitioner finally submits that
his request to provide him a copy of the minutes of the PNC meeting
was also not granted by the respondents, and he ultimately obtained
the same under the Right to Information Act.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:


6) Heard and considered .

7) The basic contention of the petitioner is that a part of his land
has been taken over by the respondent Department without his
knowledge and at his back without duly compensating him and as
such, the respondent Department deserves to be directed to initiate
proceedings for acquiring the said piece of land under the provisions
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the
Act of 2013) with a further direction to pay him the rentals /
compensation at the prevalent market rate. The petitioner also seeks
quashing and setting aside of the decision of the PNC wherein the
compensation was fixed at Rs. 4,78,000/-.

Page 4 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

8) It is worth to be noted at the very outset that the petitioner on
his own showing has stated that he came to know about the
acquisition of his land in the year 2005. This can be corroborated
from the fact that the petitioner in the year 2005 had filed a writ
petition before the Jammu Bench of this Court in which he not only
claimed rentals and compensation for the said piece of land which
was acquired by the respondent intending Department, but also
sought employment on the same basis. At the time of the hearing of
that petition, even though, the petitioner chose not to press the relief
with regard to employment, yet, the writ petition, as noted
hereinabove, was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for release of rent as well as
compensation of the land in accordance with law vide order dated
03-04-2008.

9) Subsequently, in the year 2009, he preferred a contempt
petition for seeking implementation of direction passed by this
Court vide its order dated 03-04-2008 which was registered as
CAO(OW) 47/2009.
10) From a bare perusal of the material placed on record by the
petitioner, it appears, that the petitioner chose not to pursue the said
contempt petition, after the respondents had filed their compliance
report and taken a specific stand that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-
had already been deposited by them before the Collector concerned.
The contempt petition was thereafter closed in the light of stand
taken by the respondents, vide order dated 10-09-2018, albeit, the
petitioner was not present on the said date. Interestingly, the
petitioner did not choose to revive the said contempt proceedings
thereafter, which indicates that he was satisfied that the order dated
03-04-2008 passed in the writ petition stood complied with. Had that
not been the case, the petitioner would have chosen to seek legal
remedy against the order dated 10-09-2018 passed in the contempt

Page 5 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

petition or else the order passed by the learned writ court dated 03-
04-2008.
11) The record reveals that the petitioner moved yet another
representation before the Governor’s Grievance Cell dated
09.07.2025. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no explanation
provided by the petitioner in his writ petition as to why he chose to
abandon the process of law he had set in motion before this Court
and then approached the Governor’s Grievance Cell. In any case, the
inter se communications which have been placed on record reveals
that a PNC meeting was held where the amount of earlier settled at
Rs. 3,00,000/- lacs was increased to Rs. 4,78,000/-. The said amount
was not accepted by the petitioner, as is evident from the
communication dated 04-07-2025, which clearly states, that the
petitioner refused to accept even a single penny out of the enhanced
amount of Rs. 4,78,000/- as fixed by the PNC. All the aforesaid facts
clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was very actively pursuing
the matter, that too, with the sole object of increasing the amount of
compensation payable to him.
12) Now, the petitioner has sought to challenge the fixation of the
enhanced amount of Rs 4,78,000/- by the PNC after a gap of 7 years
on the ground that he was not in know of the fact that PNC had
called a meeting and the same was held behind his back. He has also
gone to the extent that the amount so fixed therein is inadequate, and
in such circumstances the PNC decision needs to be quashed being
violative of the mandatory provisions of the Act of 2013 and the
respondents need to be directed to hold a de novo acquisition in terms
of Act of 2013.
13)
This Court after perusing the entire record and the consistent
stand of the petitioner all along is of the view that the petitioner
under a calculated design and scheme is in a way trying to entangle

Page 6 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

the respondents in a legal battle. Upon coming to know that the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the Act of 2013)
had come into force in the UT of J&K upon the coming into force of
the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 (for short the Act of 2019), the
petitioner, apparently, seeking unjust enrichment, in the light of the
aforementioned Act of 2013 which provides for a higher
compensation as against the J&K Land Acquisition Act. 1990 Svt. (for
short the Act of 1990), and seeks de novo acquisition proceedings
under Act of 2013.

14) As has been admitted by the petitioner himself, acquisition
proceedings had been started in January 2019, when the notice under
Section 4(1) of the Act of 1990 Svt. had been issued (before the
coming into effect of the Act of 2013). The PNC meeting itself was
held in February 2019. If the petitioner was aggrieved of the
quantum of compensation which was fixed by the respondents in
the PNC, he was well within his rights to seek reference against the
awarded amount in terms of the said Act. However, he waived of
the said remedy and now, seeks quashing of the PNC meeting on the
ground that he was not associated with it, on false and flimsy
grounds. This stand of the petitioner in the instant petition is
contrary to record.
15) The petitioner right from the year 2005 had been pursuing the
matter before this Court. He even made representations in the year
2018 and thereafter. Thus, as noted above the petitioner had been
actively pursuing and contesting the matter with the authorities all
these years. Yet, the petitioner pleads ignorance of the PNC meeting
having taken place and even the notice under Section 4 (1) having
been issued. The petitioner cannot plead hot and cold in the same
breath. He is estopped under law to plead that he was pursuing the
matter with the respondents all along and yet, on the other hand, he

Page 7 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

did not know that the notice under Section 4(1) had been issued or
that a PNC meeting had taken place. It seems a far-fetched theory to
say the least. As stated hereinabove, now the petitioner, realizing
that he has chosen not to seek reference against the award of the
PNC, has chosen to circumvent the statutory scheme of the Act of
1990 Svt. by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court by calling into
question the PNC meeting and the decision taken therein.
16) It needs to be stated here that the Act of 1990 is a self-contained
code, providing for remedies that too time limited. Having chosen
not to invoke that remedy, the petitioner now cannot be allowed to
seek quashment of the PNC meeting on the grounds pleaded now.
Allowing him to do so would amount to doing indirectly what is not
permitted to be done directly, and such a practice cannot be
countenanced in law.

17) Further, the petitioner seeks a direction that the respondents
be directed to initiate a de novo acquisition proceedings under the
Act of 2013. In essence what the petitioner seeks is the retrospective
application of the Act of 2013. Admittedly, the land had been taken
over by the respondent intending Department in the year 2003. Even
an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was stated to have been deposited before
the Collector in 2013, based upon which fact, as stated hereinabove,
the contempt proceedings were also closed. Furthermore, an
enhanced award of Rs. 4,78,000/- was also fixed by PNC in February
2019. Thus, all proceedings were carried out by the respondent
under the Act of 1990 Svt. The petitioner having chosen not to pursue
legal statutory remedies, now cannot insist upon the retroactive
application of the Act of 2013 to his case.
18)
In this regard it would also be expedient to refer to the decision
Bharat Petroleum Corporation
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Limited (BPCL) & Ors. vs. Nisar Ahmad Ganai & ors.
(2022) SCC

Page 8 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

Online SC 1388 wherein the Government had initiated acquisition of
land in Jammu under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act,
1990 for relocation of petroleum depots. The notification under
Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1990 were issued but before the award could be passed, the Act
stood repealed after the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act,
2019 came into force. The land owners filed writ petition before this
Court, contending that since no award had been passed and
possession had not been taken, they are entitled to compensation
under Section 24(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. This Court
accepted the plea and directed payment under the 2013 Act which
was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

19) The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 24(1)(a) of the
2013 Act applies only to acquisitions initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and not to acquisitions under the J&K State
Land Acquisition Act, 1990, even if the provisions are pari materia . It
further held that rights and liabilities under the repealed J&K Act
stood saved by Clause 2(13) of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation
(Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 read with Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act. The Court also observed that landowners
cannot claim benefit of delay caused by interim court orders
obtained during litigation. Accordingly, the High Court judgment
directing compensation under the 2013 Act was set aside, though the
writ petitions were remanded for consideration on other
grounds. For the facility of reference, relevant part of judgment
mentioned supra is reproduced as under :
“Therefore also, the original writ petitioners – land owners shall
not be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation under
Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that as the award
has not been declared they shall be entitled to compensation under
the Act, 2013.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and our
specific finding that with respect to the lands acquired under the

Page 9 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

provisions of the J & K Act, 1990 Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013
shall not be applicable and even otherwise as observed hereinabove
on merits also as the award could not be declared due to the
pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court and the order
of status quo, the High Court has committed a serious error in
directing the appellants to pay the amount of compensation under
the Act, 2013. To that extent the impugned common judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable, both on facts
as well as on law.”


20) Similarly, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case
titled Khursheed Ahmad Nazki & anr. vs. UT of J&K and ors., LPA
no. 85/2023 (decided on 01-09-2023) has held as under:
“ 30. Thus, we can say that even if the Jammu and Kashmir Land
Acquisition Act, 1990, stood repealed by virtue of the Jammu and
Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, in view of Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897, any investigation or legal proceeding
may be continued and enforced as if the repealing Act had not been
passed. Thus, even if the RFCTLARR Act came into operation
repealing the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, by virtue
of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the proceedings
already initiated under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition
Act, 1990 would continue.

31. Accordingly, in view of the above, we do not agree with the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that
after enforcement of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act,
2019, with effect from 31.10.2019, the land acquisition
proceedings have to be continued under the RFCTLARR Act.”

CONCLUSION:
21) From a bare perusal of the judgments supra , it can be safely
concluded that the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can claim
or insist that he has right to be compensated under Act of 2013. The
petitioner on his own showing, has not only admitted that the
possession of the land in question has been taken over since long,
but also has demonstrated that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was
deposited before the Collector, which was later on enhanced to Rs.
4,78,000/- by PNC, which he himself has chosen not to challenge
through statutory remedies in time, if he was dissatisfied by it. The
overall conduct of the petitioner and his pleadings, imply that the
instant petition is not a bona fide pursuit of justice but a calculated

Page 10 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

and clever, though hopelessly time barred, attempt to circumvent
the statutory rigors of the Act of 1990 Svt. and on the other hand, to
take benefit and gain unjust enrichment under the Act of 2013, which
provides for significantly higher compensation. Such conduct
cannot be countenanced as the same amounts to nothing short of a
gross abuse of process of law.
22) The petition, accordingly, is found to be devoid of any merit
and an attempt to reopen settled issues for financial gain and unjust
enrichment. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed along with
connected application(s).
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
SRINAGAR:
14.05.2026
“HAMID”

❖
Whether Judgment is Speaking? Yes
❖ Whether Judgment is Reportable? No/Yes.


Abdul Hamid Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

Page 11 of 11 WP(C) 1010/2026

15.05.2026