01Facts
The petitioner, a migrant from Srinagar, owned land in District Kupwara. In 2003, the Jal Shakti Department occupied 1 Kanal and 4 Marlas of his land for a water reservoir without formal acquisition
pp. 2-3Following a 2005 writ petition, the Court directed respondents to consider rent and compensation
p. 3In 2013, respondents deposited ₹3,00,000 with the Collector, leading to the closure of contempt proceedings in 2018
p. 3After fresh representations to the Governor’s Grievance Cell, a Private Negotiation Committee (PNC) enhanced the compensation to ₹4,78,000 on 05-02-2019
p. 4The petitioner challenged this PNC decision and sought fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act), alleging the PNC meeting was held without his knowledge and the amount was inadequate
p. 4, 602Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner can challenge the PNC proceedings and seek de novo acquisition under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, after having participated in the process under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990
p. 4 / para. 7ii.2. Whether the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, applies retrospectively to acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990
p. 8 / para. 1703Law Applied
The Court applied the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (Svt.), noting it is a self-contained code providing specific statutory remedies like references for enhanced compensation
p. 8Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, is inapplicable to acquisitions initiated under the J&K State Act of 1990
p. 9Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the J&K Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, save rights and liabilities under repealed laws, ensuring that proceedings initiated under the 1990 Act continue under that specific regime
pp. 9-10Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24Section 26Section 27Section 28Section 29Section 30
General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 6
04Reasoning
The Court found the petitioner’s claim of ignorance regarding the acquisition and PNC meeting to be "far-fetched" and a "calculated design" for unjust enrichment
p. 6, 8Since the petitioner had been litigating the matter since 2005 and actively pursuing the claim through grievance cells, he was estopped from pleading ignorance of the 2019 notice and PNC meeting
p. 7The Court reasoned that the acquisition was initiated and possession taken under the 1990 Act; therefore, the petitioner cannot circumvent the statutory scheme by seeking retrospective application of the 2013 Act
p. 8Legal proceedings initiated under the repealed 1990 Act are preserved by the General Clauses Act and do not automatically transition to the 2013 Act
p. 10The Court characterized the petition as a "gross abuse of process" intended to bypass time-barred statutory remedies
p. 1105Holding
The petitioner has no right to be compensated under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, for proceedings concluded or initiated under the 1990 Act
p. 10The Court dismissed the writ petition and all connected applications, concluding that the petitioner’s attempt to reopen settled issues for financial gain was devoid of merit
p. 11Original Court PDF
AUTAR KRISHAN DHARvsUNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (REVENUE)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
