Son’s 12-Year-Late Land Acquisition Challenge Fails As J&K HC Notes Father Received 80% Compensation Without Protest

Land measuring 236 kanals and 13 marlas at village Bhajwal was acquired for a BSF Sector Headquarters.

The acquisition began with a notification under Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990, and culminated in an award dated 18 April 2011 fixing compensation at Rs. 1,60,000 per kanal, with 50% jabrana

The appellant challenged, among other matters, the acquisition of 64 kanals, the revenue records, compensation and alleged non-release of land.

His writ petition, filed in June 2023, was dismissed by the Single Judge.

The record showed that the appellant’s father, Badri Nath, had received 80% of the compensation payable against his share, while Rs. 3,92,533 representing the remaining 20% remained with the Collector.

The acquisition was initiated under Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990.

The Court applied the principles that a challenge to acquisition proceedings culminating in a final award must be brought without unjustified delay; allegations alone do not warrant reopening a concluded acquisition; and disputes concerning compensation assessment or apportionment should be pursued through the remedies provided by law.

The judgment cited no precedent or specific statutory provision governing those compensation remedies.

The Court found that the acquisition had culminated in the 2011 award, whereas the writ petition was filed in 2023, and the appellant had shown no sufficient ground to overcome that delay.

The record supported the finding that Badri Nath received 80% of the compensation, with no recorded protest, and the appellant identified no material warranting a different conclusion.

Allegations about outdated revenue records and the land taken did not establish legal error in the Single Judge’s findings; nor did the decision in another writ petition establish error in this case.

The unpaid balance remained available for the legal heirs to claim, and any permissible compensation or apportionment dispute could be pursued before the competent forum.

The Court clarified that the dismissal did not prevent Badri Nath’s legal heirs from applying to the competent authority for release of the remaining compensation or pursuing any other remedy available under law.