LT.COL YESH PAUL SHARMA (Retd.) vs UNION OF INDIA TH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU










LPA No. 131/2026

Reserved on 27.10.2026
Pronounced on 31.10.2026
Uploaded on: 03.11.2026

Whether the operative part or
full judgment is
pronounced:Full


Lt. Co. Yesh Paul Sharma ..... appellant (s)


Through :- Appellant in person


V/s

Union of India and others .....Respondent(s)

Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma DSGI with
Mr. Karan Sharma CGSC
Ms. Monika Kohli Sr. AAG with
Ms. Priyanka Bhat Advocate
Mr. Akash Gupta Advocate.


Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE


JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Kumar J
1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against an order and judgment
dated 24.12.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ
Court”] in WP(C) No. 1736/2023, titled Ltd. Col. Yesh Paul Sharma (Retd.) v.
Union of India and others , whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has
been dismissed.

2 LPA 131/2026

2. The appellant is aggrieved of the impugned judgment passed by
the writ Court and challenges the same on the ground that the writ Court has
failed to appreciate the material facts and the alleged irregularities in the
acquisition proceedings.
3 We have heard the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the record.
3. The facts, in brief, are that land measuring 236 kanals and 13
marlas, comprising various khasra numbers situated at village Bhajwal (Mohra
Sodra), Tehsil Sunderbani, came to be acquired for the establishment of the
Sector Headquarters of the Border Security Force (BSF). The acquisition
proceedings commenced with the notification issued under Section 4 of the
Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990, in March 2006. The
Collector Land Acquisition subsequently made the final award bearing No.
Coll/Def/48-49 dated 18.04.2011, assessing compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,60,000/- per kanal, together with jabrana at the rate of 50 per cent.
4. The grievance raised in the writ petition primarily was with regard
to the acquisition of land comprising khasra Nos. 1656, 1658 and 1670,
measuring 64 kanals [“the subject land”]. The appellant before the writ court
questioned the legality of the acquisition proceedings, the correctness of the
revenue records relied upon by the acquiring authorities, the assessment and
disbursement of compensation, as also the alleged failure of the authorities to
release certain parcels of land. He also sought, inter alia , de-notification and
restoration of land, and an inquiry into the alleged irregularities. He further
sought a direction for payment of the compensation claimed to be due to him.

3 LPA 131/2026

5. The learned Single Judge, while examining the matter, called upon
the Collector Land Acquisition, Defence, Rajouri-Poonch, to appear in person
along with the relevant record to explain the apportionment and payment of
compensation. Upon examination of the record, the writ Court found that the
appellant's father, Badri Nath, along with his two brothers, Tej Ram and Paras
Ram, held a one-third share each in the land falling to their family share of 32
kanals.
6. The record produced before the writ Court indicated that 80 per
cent of the compensation payable against the respective shares had been paid.
In particular, an amount of Rs.15,70,133/- was shown to have been paid to
Badri Nath vide cheque No. 731666 dated 03.02.2008. The relevant
apportionment statement bore his signature in the column meant for the
signatures of the payees, and there was nothing on record to indicate that the
amount had been received under protest. The writ Court further found that the
remaining 20 per cent of the compensation payable to Badri Nath, amounting
to Rs.3,92,533/-, remained deposited with the Collector, as he had not
approached the authority for its release.
7. The writ Court also took note of the fact that Badri Nath had died
on 25.12.2022, whereas the writ petition was instituted in June 2023. The
petition had nevertheless been instituted in his name, without his affidavit or
signature. The learned writ Court, therefore, held that the appellant had
instituted the proceedings in his deceased father’s name without establishing
any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceedings in the manner claimed .
8. The writ Court, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition, holding
that the appellant could not seek to reopen the concluded acquisition

4 LPA 131/2026

proceedings through the writ petition. It was, however, observed that the legal
heirs could approach the competent authority for release of the remaining
compensation, subject to obtaining the requisite succession certificate, and
could avail of the appropriate statutory remedy for any permissible dispute
relating to assessment or apportionment of compensation.
9. The appellant appearing in person would submit that the judgment
passed by the writ Court is not sustainable in law. It is contended that the
learned Single Judge has failed to consider the alleged discrepancies in the
revenue record, the extent of land actually taken into possession by the
acquiring authorities, and the alleged irregularities in the payment of
compensation. The appellant would further submit that the acquisition
proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure
and that the writ Court has failed to appreciate the material relied upon by the
appellant, including the correspondence relating to the alleged requirement of
land and the subsequent use thereof.It is also contended that the writ Court has
not properly considered the agreement regarding the release of a portion of the
acquired land and the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 1361/2023, titled Rattan
Chand and others v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others . On
these grounds, the appellant seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment.
10. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
support the judgment passed by the writ Court. It is submitted that the
acquisition proceedings stood concluded with the making of the award dated
18.04.2011 and that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity
warranting interference by this Court in the judgment impugned in this
intra-Court appeal. It is further submitted that the relevant record establishes
payment of 80 per cent of the compensation to the appellant's father without

5 LPA 131/2026

any recorded protest and that the remaining compensation is also available with
the Collector for its release in accordance with law. Learned counsel would,
therefore, submit that the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal.
11. Having considered the submissions made by the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the original acquisition record
produced by learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the considered view
that no ground for interference with the impugned judgment is made out.
12 The primary question that arises for consideration is whether the
appellant has been able to point out any infirmity in the judgment passed by the
writ Court warranting interference by this Court in this appeal . We are of the
considered view that the appellant has failed to do so.
13. It is an admitted position that the acquisition proceedings
commenced in the year 2006 and culminated in the final award dated
18.04.2011. The writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, the
award, the revenue entries and the payment of compensation was instituted in
June 2023. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate any justifiable
ground for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court after such a considerable
lapse of time. Mere allegations of irregularities in the acquisition proceedings
or disbursement of compensation, without anything more, cannot be a ground
to reopen an acquisition which has culminated into a final award since
18.04.2011.
14. Another important aspect of the matter is that the claim of the
appellant, insofar as it relates to the share of his father in the acquired land, is
founded upon the rights which vested in his father during his lifetime. The writ
Court has noticed that Badri Nath had received 80 per cent of the compensation

6 LPA 131/2026

payable against his share and that the apportionment statement bears his
signatures acknowledging receipt of the amount. The appellant has not been
able to point out any material on record which would warrant a different view
on this aspect.Even otherwise, any grievance with regard to the quantum of
compensation or its apportionment has to be worked out in accordance with the
remedy provided under law. The appellant cannot seek to invalidate the entire
acquisition proceedings merely by raising such a grievance, particularly when
his father had received a substantial portion of the compensation without any
recorded protest.
15. The plea that the acquiring authorities relied on outdated revenue
records or that the land taken over did not correspond to the land covered by
the award does not warrant a different view from the one taken by the learned
Single Judge. The appellant has failed to point out any legal error in the
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that would justify interference
by this Court in appeal.
16. The judgment passed in WP(C) No. 1361/2023, titled Rattan
Chand and others v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others, relied
upon by the appellant, does not advance his case. The decision in another writ
petition, based on its own facts, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that the
judgment under appeal is erroneous. The appellant was required to show that
the findings recorded by the learned writ Court in the present case were
contrary to the facts and material on record or were otherwise legally
unsustainable. He has failed to establish any such infirmity .
17. We are also in agreement with the writ Court that the claim
relating to the unpaid 20 per cent of the compensation stands on a different

7 LPA 131/2026

footing. The amount of Rs.3,92,533/- payable to Badri Nath has been found to
be lying with the Collector Land Acquisition. The legal heirs of the deceased
may approach the competent authority for release of the said amount upon
establishing their entitlement in accordance with law. Any permissible
grievance regarding the assessment or apportionment of compensation may
also be pursued before the competent forum in accordance with the applicable
statutory provisions. In the face of availability of such remedies, writ
jurisdiction cannot be invoked for reopening the entire acquisition proceedings
in the manner sought by the appellant.
18. Upon consideration of the matter, we find that the learned writ
Court has duly considered the material on record and has rightly held that the
reliefs sought by the appellant could not be granted in the writ petition. The
grounds raised in the present appeal do not disclose any error of law or
perversity in the findings recorded by the learned writ Court. The appellant has
merely reiterated the pleas raised before the learned writ Court, without
showing any valid ground for interference by this Court in this appeal.
20. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. The
writ Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition, and we see no reason to
take a different view.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment
dated 24.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1736/2023
is upheld.It is, however, clarified that the dismissal of this appeal shall not
preclude the legal heirs of deceased Badri Nath from approaching the
competent authority for release of the remaining compensation or from availing
of any other remedy available to them under law.
The original record be returned to the concerned.

8 LPA 131/2026



(M.A.CHOWDHARY) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu
31 .10.2026
Sanjeev
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No
Sanjeev Kumar
2026.11.03 14:07
I am the author of this
document