Failure to deliver awarded exchange land requires allotment of equivalent-value land.

Kumari Shanta Bharti owned 13 kanals of land acquired in 1973 for construction of the By-Pass Road to Tawi Bridge.

In lieu of cash compensation, an award dated 5 October 1994 allotted her alternative land: 8 kanals 3 marlas in Khasra No. 62, 17 marlas in Khasra No. 96, and 4 kanals in Khasra No. 344 at Khanpur.

She claimed that possession of the Khanpur parcel was never delivered and sought a reference under Section 18 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990, also claiming loss arising from delay and the division of the alternative land into separate parcels.

The Reference Court dismissed the reference, finding insufficient evidence of loss, but did not address the issue of possession of the 4-kanal parcel.

Her legal representatives appealed under Section 52; after one appellant died, the appeal proceeded through the surviving appellant.

Whether possession of the 4 kanals of land in Khasra No. 344 at Khanpur, allotted under the 1994 award, had been delivered to Shanta Bharti.

Whether the claimed loss arising from the delay in making the alternative-land award and the allocation of land in separate parcels entitled Shanta Bharti to monetary compensation.

Section 18 provides for reference of disputes arising from acquisition, while Section 52 provides for an appeal from the reference court’s decision.

An award providing land in exchange is not satisfied unless the allotted land is delivered; where delivery is not possible, the authorities must provide alternative land of equivalent value.

An adverse inference may be drawn where a party in possession of relevant records fails to produce them despite a request for their production.

The right to property was a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) as applicable in the former State of Jammu and Kashmir before 2019, and remains a constitutional right.

The Court found that Shanta Bharti had specifically asserted that the 4-kanal parcel was never handed over, and that her account remained unrebutted.

The Collector’s testimony that possession had been delivered was incomplete because he did not return for further cross-examination; the authorities also failed to produce the possession record sought by Shanta Bharti.

The Court therefore drew an adverse inference and held that possession had not been delivered.

It further relied on a 2005 Jammu Development Authority communication identifying a different parcel for possible allotment in substitution.

The Reference Court’s failure to address the additional issue or the evidence on it was a material error.

By contrast, the Court upheld rejection of the delay-related monetary claim: no supporting evidence of loss had been led, and the Court considered that the alternative land may also have appreciated in value during the relevant period.

The appeal was allowed and the Reference Court’s judgment set aside.

The respondents were directed to identify and allot 4 kanals of State/JDA land of similar value in place of the Khanpur parcel, in favour of Raj Sharma (Bharti) and, if any, the legal heirs of the deceased appellant, and to deliver possession within three months of receiving the order.