Facts
The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of approximately four kanals of land in Khasra No. 787, Khewat No. 106, at Goose Zangli, Kupwara.
Source reference: p. 2, paras. 1–4They alleged that the Jal Shakti Department began construction of a water tank and residential quarter on the land without lawful acquisition or compensation, and sought compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as well as protection from dispossession.
Source reference: p. 2, paras. 1–4The respondents denied using the petitioners’ land, stating that after the petitioners objected to the proposed site, the project was shifted and completed elsewhere.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 6–9The petitioners’ counsel did not dispute that the site had been shifted.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 13Issues
Whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act where the respondents denied acquiring or using their land and the proposed site had been shifted.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 11–14Whether the petitioners’ request for protection against dispossession remained for determination after the respondents stated that no departmental asset had been constructed on the land.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 15Law Applied
The Court considered Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the petitioners invoked the Court’s writ jurisdiction, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, under which they sought compensation.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1The Court’s reasoning proceeded on the basis that compensation was not warranted on the pleaded claim where the land had neither been acquired nor used for the proposed departmental assets.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 14Reasoning
The respondents specifically denied acquiring or using the petitioners’ land and stated that the project had been shifted to another site.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 12–14The petitioners’ counsel did not dispute that the site had been shifted, and the Court therefore found that the essential factual basis for compensation—acquisition or use of the land—was not established.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 12–14For the same reason, the request to prevent dispossession did not survive, given the respondents’ position that no departmental asset had been constructed on the land.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 15Holding
The Court held that, in light of the undisputed site shift and the absence of established acquisition or use of the petitioners’ land, no compensation direction was warranted and no surviving cause of action remained for the other relief sought.
It dismissed the writ petition.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 17Original Court PDF
ABDUL KARIM KOLI AND ANR.vsUNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (JAL SHAKTI / PHE)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
