CH MOHD SADIQ vs UNION OF INDIA TH MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS AND ORS

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
Serial No. 200
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH

AT JAMMU



OWP No. 1625/2020
CM No.827/2025
CM No. 4023/2025
CM No. 5543/2020


Reserved On: 13 .02.2026
Pronounced On: 24 .02.2026
Uploaded On: 24 .02.2026

Whether the operative part or

full judgment is pronounced - Full Judgment
Ch. Mohd. Sadiq
S/O Munshi Khan,
R/O H. No. 425,
Digiana Ashram, Jammu



....Petitioner(s)


Through: Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Farhan Mirza, Adv.


Vs

01. Union of India , through























.…. Respondent(s)
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs
Nirman Bhavan, Maulana Azad Road
New Delhi-110011.
02. Director General,
Central Public Works Department,
New Delhi.
03. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through
Commissioner/Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
04. Deputy Commissioner/District Collector,
Jammu.
05. Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department, Jammu
06. Regional Officer,
National Highway Authority of India,
st
1 Floor, House No.315, Sector-1,
Channi Himmat, Jammu-180015
07. Project Director, PIU,
National Highway Authority of India,
st
1 Floor, H. No.315, Sector -1,
Channi Himmat, Jammu-180015.



OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 1 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI for R-1 & 2.
Ms. Nisha Kangotra, Adv vice
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R- 3 & 4.
Ms. Pallavi Sharma, AC vice
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-5.
Mr. Sunny Mahajan, Adv. for R- 6 & 7.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Patwari Halqa Digiana.



CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE



JUDGMENT

01. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition, has, inter alia, prayed
for the following reliefs:
(a) Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay
compensation to the petitioner in lieu of the Land
measuring 02 Kanals falling under Khasra No.299 (old)
situated at Village Digiana, Jammu which been utilised
by the Respondents CPWD for the purpose of future
widening of the Jammu-Pathankot National Highway
and was occupied by CPWD in 1957 without conducting
acquisition proceedings / without following due process
of law.”
(b) Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents
No.4 to place on record the acquisition proceedings
conducted with respect to the land measuring 02 Kanal
falling under Khasra No.299 (old) and Award, if any.

(c) Mandamus commanding the respondents to assess the
compensation alongwith interest w.e.f. the date of its
occupation till the date of its realization alongwith
interest.
(d) Such other appropriate writ, order or direction which
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the given
facts and circumstances may kindly be passed in favour
of the petitioner as against the respondents.”
02. Facts, as pleaded by the petitioner, which give rise to filing of this
petition, are that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner herein was the

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 2 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
owner in possession of a piece of land measuring 2 kanal 11 marla falling
under Khasra No.299 (old) situated at Village Digiana, Jammu; that out of said
land, land measuring 11 marlas was sold by the father of the petitioner to one
Makhan Singh; that the rest of the land measuring 2 kanal falling in the said
Khasra No.299 (old) situated at Village Digiana remained in possession with
the father of the petitioner; that the said land was recorded as occupied by
CPWD without initiating acquisition proceedings for the purposes of future
widening of Jammu-Pathankot National Highway as is clear from the revenue
record for the year 2005, the said land has been shown to have been occupied
by the CPWD, whereas the owner of the said land were shown Mohd. Din and
Ors. i.e. the fore-fathers of the petitioner; that on approaching the revenue
authorities for payment of compensation in lieu of the land acquired by the
respondents for construction/widening of the road; i.e. that the land measuring
2 kanal under the said Khasra number was allowed to continue with the CPWD
as per entry Kharief 1957; that the petitioner made an application before the
Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Jammu regarding compensation of the land
measuring 02 kanals, in which some reports were called and which made it
abundantly clear that the land of the petitioner has been utilized, for widening
of the National Highway by CPWD without initiating any acquisition
proceedings and without paying any compensation to the petitioner. Hence the
present petition is filed by the petitioner praying for the relief enumerated in
para 1 of this judgment.
03. The petitioner, has assailed the action of the respondents in utilizing the
land of his predecessors, without proper acquisition in accordance with law, on
the following grounds:

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 3 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
A. That the respondents have occupied the land of the
forefathers of petitioner measuring 02 kanal falling under
Khasra No.299 (old) situate at Village Digiana, Jammu
without any authority under law. At best, the respondents
could have resorted to compulsory acquisition but that too
a right to have compensation at the present market value is
an indivisible right, which cannot be denied by the
respondents. The petitioner has a legal right in terms of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013. The compensation of land under the Act is governed
by Section 26 of the Act, whereas, the market Value is
determined in terms of notification no.DCJ/SQ/Stamp-
Duty/2019-20/3531-69 dated 31.12.2019 and as per the
same the correct market value of land is thus, required to
be paid to the petitioner alongwith interest for the unpaid
amount w.e.f. the actual taking over and utilization of the
land by the respondents.
B. That the respondents have not issued any notice for
acquisition as warranted in lieu of the land of the
petitioner of the petitioner occupied by the Respondents
CPWD of their own.
C. That the petitioner has been moving from pillar to post to
know about the process adopted by the respondents while
occupying the land of the petitioners, and has come to
know that the land measuring 2 kanal is occupied by the
respondent CPWD, but the entry in the revenue record is
silent about the competency/authority of the Respondent
CPWD to occupy the land of the petitioner as it is nowhere
reflected in the revenue entry that the land is occupied
after acquisition proceedings, that too after payment of
any compensation or not.
D. That the action of the respondents is against the principles
of natural justice.

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 4 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
E. That the action of the respondents is also violative of
Fundamental Rights of the petitioner as in the erstwhile
State of J&K, the right to property was a fundamental
right. The land has been acquired since long, hence this
right of the petitioner has been violated.”

Objections on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2-CPWD .
04. In the objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is contended
that the Deputy Director (P) Public Works Department vide communication dated
11.10.2010 conveyed the approval of the Administrative Department, for taking
over the road Kunjwani Byepass to Satwari Chowk from CPWD by the Chief
Engineer, R&B Jammu for improvement and widening/four lane of the road,
since then the aforesaid road is under the possession, control and management of
Chief Engineer, PW(R&B) Jammu; that admitted case of the petitioner is that
land of the petitioner was kept for future widening of the road and so after taking
over the said road by the Chief Engineer, R&B Jammu from CPWD, the CPWD
has nothing to do with the land of the petitioner, as such, the instant petition be
dismissed accordingly.
Objections on behalf of Respondent No. 4
05. On 19.10.2023, reply to the writ petition came to be filed on behalf of
Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. Paras 2 to 6 of the said reply being relevant,
are reproduced hereinbelow:
“2. that in reply to para no.2-4, it is submitted that the
revenue records with respect to land measuring 02 kanals
bearing Kh. No. 299 old situated at Village Digiana
Jammu has been verified and it has been observed that
the said land has been occupied by the Central Public
Works Department but the predecessor in interest of the
petitioner has been recorded as owner of the land.

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 5 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
However, neither any entry nor any record with respect
to the acquisition of the said land has been found as such
vide communication bearing no.DCJ/SQ/MISC/2022-
23/3496-97 dated 10.09.2022 the Central Public Works
Department was requested to place on record the
acquisition proceedings, if any, conducted with respect to
the land in question or furnish the record depicting that
the predecessor in interest of the petitioner have been
compensated in any manner but till date no information
has been received.
3. That in reply to para no.5-6, it is submitted that there is
no entry of acquisition of the land in question in the
revenue record as such the question of payment of
compensation does not arise.
4. That in reply to para no.7, it is submitted that the
petitioner in para no.2 of the petition has himself stated
that he is owner in possession of land measuring 2K 11 M
in kh. No. 299 old situated at village Digiana Jammu out
of which his father has sold 11 marlas of land, however, in
the para under reply the petitioner is stating that 2K of
the land has been utilized by the respondents for
widening of land and 09 M of the land is in possession of
the petitioner. Both the averments are in itself contrary to
each other.
5. That the contents of para no.8 is a matter of record.
6. That in reply to para no.9, it is submitted that as per the
revenue record, the entry of the CPWD has occurred in
the year 1971 and not in the year 1957.”

Objections on behalf of respondent No.5- Chief Engineer, PWD, Jammu
06. Objections stand filed on behalf of respondent no.5 contending, inter alia,
that the writ petition is not maintainable qua respondent no.5; that the road in
question for which land of the petitioner was allegedly taken over was in

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 6 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
existence prior to year 1947 and the road was being maintained by Central Public
Works Department and it was only in year 2010 that the road in question was
handed over to respondent no.5 and execution of work started in Dec. 2010; that
the stretch of land i.e. Satwari-Kunjwani road has again been handed over to
National Highway Authority of India since November 2021 and further up-
gradation of the said road to six laning is in progress by NHAI; that the road in
question was in occupation/possession of CPWD since 1957, which came to be
handed over to respondent no.5- PWD in the year 2010 and now again handed
over to NHAI since 2021; that the land of the petitioner has not been utilized by
PWD and therefore, there is no question of compensation against respondent
no.5. Lastly, it is prayed that writ petition of the petitioner be dismissed as the
writ petition is not maintainable against respondent no. 5.
Objections on behalf of respondent nos.6&7- NHAI
07. Regional Officer, RO Jammu, National Highway Authority of India and
Project Director, PIU, NHAI who came to be impleaded as respondents 6 and 7
respectively in this writ petition, vide order passed by this court on 18.02.2025 in
the application moved by the applicant-petitioner, filed reply on behalf of NHAI
that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands and has
suppressed material facts that land in question has been used for Highway was
handed over to the National Highway Authority of India by the PWD ( R&B) Sub
Division, Digiana, Jammu, which was earlier being maintained by CPWD as per
the records and the entire land which has been utilized by the NHAI is shown as
State land, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground
alone; that the petitioner has raised the disputed questions of facts as the claim of
the petitioner as regards ownership of the land in question cannot be adjudicated

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 7 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
upon without evidence being led by the parties, for the adjudication of which this
court cannot exercise its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, therefore, the writ
petition requires to be dismissed qua the answering respondents 6 and 7.
08. This court on 19.10.2020 directed respondent no.4- Deputy
Commissioner, Jammu to file report with regard to acquisition of the land
measuring 2 kanal falling in Khasra No.299 old situated at Village Digiana
Jammu which is subject matter of this writ petition. Pursuant thereto, Deputy
Commissioner, Jammu filed Action Taken Report on 10.09.2022, relevant part
of the said report is reproduced as below:
“2. That the answering respondent has verified the revenue
record of land measuring 02 kanal falling in Khasra
No.299 old situated at Village Digiana, Jammu and it has
been found that the land has been occupied by the Central
Public Works Department whereas the predecessor-in-
interest of the petitioner has been recorded as the owner of
the land. Now vide Letter No.DCJ/SQ/MISC/2022-
23/3496-97 dated 10.09.2022 the answering respondent has
written to the intending department i.e. Central Public
Works Department to place on record the acquisition
proceedings conducted, if any with respect to the said land
and to furnish the record depicting that the predecessor-in-
interest of the petitioner have been compensated in any
manner thereof with respect to land measuring 2 kanal
falling in Khasra No.299 old situated at Village Digiana,
Jammu.”
09. Mr. Kohli, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a
parcel of land measuring 2 kanal comprised in khasra No.299 old in village
Digiana, owned by the petitioner’s father- Munshi Khan came to be appropriated
for widening of Jammu-Pathankot National Highway in 1957 without payment of

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 8 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
any compensation or acquisition; that mutation No.2894/Jeem dated 31.12.2015
came to be attested by Naib-Tehsidar, Digiana, on the basis of inheritance of
Munshi Khan (co-sharer) taking place in favour of his sons – Mohd. Sadiq
(petitioner herein), Mohd. Latif & Mohd. Yousaf and daughters – Rashida
Begum, Maqbool Begum, Naseer Begum & Mumtaz Akhter. Lastly, it is prayed
that the writ petition be allowed by directing the respondents to pay just and fair
compensation to the petitioner for the land which is in possession of the
respondents.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents, in tune with the replies filed on
behalf of all the respondents, argued that as per revenue record the land in
question had gone to the possession of Central Public Works Department
(CPWD) in the fifties or sixties and since then it has changed hands from State
Public Works Departmant to National Highway Authority of India who is
utilizing the land for construction of Delhi-Amritsar-Katra six lane Expressway
and the petitioner has now awaken from his deep slumber to seek compensation.
It was prayed to dismiss the petition, on the basis of delay and laches.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the file, and
considered the matter.
12. On the basis of the record available on file and as pleaded by the petitioner,
and also admitted by the Revenue authorities which is evident from the report
filed by respondent No. 5- Deputy Commissioner, Jammu that the petitioner’s
father namely Munshi Khan was owner in possession of a land measuring 2
kanals and 11 marlas situated at Digiana Jammu of which he sold 11 marlas to
one Makhan Singh and the rest of the two kanals of land was used and occupied
by the Central Public Works Department for the construction and maintenance of

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 9 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
Jammu-Kathua National Highway which was later transferred to the State Public
Works Department who handed over the same to National Highway Authortiy of
India which had developed a highway by making it four lanes initially and that
now has been a part of six lane Delhi-Amristar-Katra Expressway.
13. As per the report of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu which he had filed on
the basis of the revenue reports, no entry with regard to payment of compensation
or the mode of transfer of land in question in favour of the Central Public Works
Department has been recorded and that the Central Public Works Department on
being taken up the matter had also not responded. The other respondents, Chief
Engineer, Public Works Department, Jammu respondent-5, had stated that the
road was being maintained by CPWD since 1947 and in the year 2010, the road in
question was handed over to State Public Works Department, however, again this
road was handed over to National Highway Authority of India, in the month of
November 2021 to further upgrade the same to six-lane Expressway by NHAI.
He has admitted that the land in question had remained in possession of CPWD
since 1957 which was handed over to State PWD in 2010 and ultimately to NHAI
since November 2021.
14. The Central Public Works Department (CPWD) in its reply has not stated
anything as to how the petitioner’s land came to be transferred to CPWD, before
it was transferred to J&K PWD, which means that there was no document with
regard to acquisition of the land in question or payment of compensation. The
respondent-NHAI has also not refuted the contentions made in the petition except
that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts and that the mixed questions
of fact and law are involved which cannot be decided under the writ jurisdiction.

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 10 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516

15. It has thus come to fore that the land measuring two kanals comprising of
khasra no. 299 old in Village Digiana owned by the forefathers of the petitioner
namely Mohd. Din and others; and that the petitioner and his brothers Mohd.
Latief and Mohd. Yousuf and their sisters Rashida Begum, Maqbool Begum,
Naseer Begum & Mumtaz Akhter had an interest in the land having been
inherited from their father Late Munshi Khan. Admittedly, the land in question
had been used initially by CPWD, then by State PWD and now being used by the
National Highway Authority of India, without acquiring the same in terms of the
law applicable for land acquisition and without payment of compensation to the
rightful owners.
16. In case titled Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra &
others , (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 356, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para
96 observed as under:-
“96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer,
but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human
right as observed by this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v.
Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and Others. In view of the mandate of
Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived
of his property save by the authority of law. The appellant trust
cannot be deprived of its property save in accordance with law.”

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court again in case titled Vidya Devi Vs. State of
Himachal Paradesh and Ors , (2020) 2 SCC 569 held in Paragraphs 12.1 to
12.6 observed as under:-
“12.1.The Appellant was forcibly expropriated of her property
in1967, when the right to property was a fundamental right
guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of the Constitution. Article 31
guaranteed the right to private property, which could not be deprived
without due process of law and upon just and fair compensation.

12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the
Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it
continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a Constitutional

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 11 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Article 300 A provides
that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of
law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in
accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to
pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A,
can be inferred in that Article.
12.3 To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without
following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as
also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution.
Reliance is placed on the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, wherein this Court held
that :SCC p.634 para 6)

“6. … Having regard to the provisions contained in Article
300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of
"eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of
a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a
public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be
paid.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12.4. In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy , this Court held
that (SCC p 526, para 21)

“21. If the right of property is a human right as also
a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except
in accordance with law. Article 300Aof the Constitution
protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to
divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article
300A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.
(emphasis supplied)
12.5. In Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P.&
Ors.6, this Court recognized the right to property as a basic human
right in the following words:

“30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different
political thinkers that some amount of property right is an
indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic
oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that
liberty cannot long subsist without the support of
property."Property must be secured, else liberty cannot
subsist" was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the
view that property itself is the seed bed which must
be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish is
the consensus among political thinkers and jurists.”
(emphasis supplied)


12.6. In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, this
Court held as follows :
“48. …In other words, Article 300A only limits the
powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law. There has to be no

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 12 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any
other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under
Article 300A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no
deprivation.”
(emphasis supplied)

18. From the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the report of the
Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, the petitioner’s land measuring 02 kanal
comprising of Survey No.299 (old) of Village Digiana, Jammu was taken over
initially by Central Public Works Department in the year 1957, which later on
was handed over to the respondent J&K PWD in the year 2010 and finally to
NHAI in the year 2021. It is very strange that the land owners including the
petitioner, were deprived of their landed estate without resorting to the law of the
land i.e., either to acquire land in terms of Land Acquisition Act which was in
vogue at that point of time or through private negotiations. The respondents are
found to have been in possession of the land, for the last more than 70 years now,
which is not permissible for the simple reason that right to hold property was
initially a fundament right, as per Constitution of India as well as the Constitution
of J&K and even now is also a constitutional and human right under Article 300-
A of the Constitution of India. The land owners cannot be divested of their
property without following due course of law.
19. Having regard to the discussion made hereinabove, aforestated reasons, and
with a view to put the controversy involved in this petition to quietus, the writ
petition is allowed, with the following directions:
1. The respondent- National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), is
directed t submit an indent for acquisition of the land in question
to the Collector/Competent Authority, or in the alternative, restore
the possession of the subject land to the land owners, within a

OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 13 of 14

2026:JKLHC-JMU:516
period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this judgment
is made available to them.
2. The Collector /Competent Authority on receipt of indent from
NHAI shall proceed in accordance with the applicable law
pertaining to acquisition of land and conclude the same, in
accordance with timeline provided under the relevant statute.
20. Petition, is thus , disposed of as allowed , along with connected application
(s) with the aforesaid directions.

(M.A Chowdhary)
Judge
Jammu
24 .02.2026
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No.


OWP No. 1625/2020 Page 14 of 14