news details |
|
|
| Land holders only entitled to fair compensation not job under LAA: DB | | | Early Times Report
SRINAGAR, Aug 12: Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar holds that under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (LAA), if any land is acquired, the land holders are only entitled to fair compensation and nothing more. There is no question of any employment under the provisions of the said Act.
The petitioner by means of this petition wants a direction to be issued commanding the respondents to pay proper and suitable compensation as per market value to the petitioners for their land situate at Panzgam, Kupwara, and to process the case of the petitioner no.5 for appointment in the Government Department.
writ petition is totally unexplained and cannot be countenanced for.
DB observed that the petitioners are trying to make stale case which is virtually dead with the passage of time. Moreover, the petitioner No.1 having accepted the employment, may be on temporary basis, cannot turn around and ask for employment for his son i.e., petitioner no.5.
DB further observed that the petitioners themselves state that the land was given by them with the clear assurance that petitioner no.1 will be appointed. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the petitioners' land was so given for the purposes of constructing a Panchayat Ghar or there was any such assurance as alleged by the petitioners. The only fact on record is that petitioner no.1 was temporarily appointed on 04.07.1983 and he continued till reaching the age of superannuation.
DB said that even under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, if any land is acquired, the land holders are only entitled to fair compensation and nothing more. There is no question of any employment under the provisions of the said Act.
DB observed that since there is nothing on record to establish that the land of the petitioner was acquired in any manner and any assurance was extended to them for giving employment, we do not deem it fit and proper to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
