news details |
|
|
| Landowner cannot pocket compensation and disown acquisition: DB | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 8: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a landowner who invoked reference proceedings for enhancement of compensation and accepted the enhanced amount cannot later deny the very acquisition of land.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rajesh Sekhri passed the judgment in LPAOW No. 11/2016, filed by the legal heirs of Ravail Chand, relating to land measuring 36 kanals and 17 marlas situated at Village Rakh Bhau, Jammu.
The appeal was directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated March 17, 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant had been dismissed. The appellant had claimed that no award was ever passed regarding his land and, therefore, the subsequent reference proceedings under Section 18 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act were without jurisdiction.
Appearing for the appellants, Senior Advocate U.K. Jalali with Advocate Neeraj Verma argued that the appellant could not be stopped from asserting ownership merely because he participated in reference proceedings. It was further submitted that the appellant had been paid compensation only to the extent of one-third of the assessed value.
Opposing the plea, Senior AAG Monika Kohli submitted that the appellant had himself sought reference under Section 18 on the ground of inadequacy of compensation, appeared before the Reference Court, pursued enhancement and accepted the enhanced compensation. DSGI Vishal Sharma with CGSC Eishaan Dadhichi appeared for the Union authorities, while Advocate Sachin Dogra represented the Jammu Development Authority.
The Division Bench noted that the appellant had deposed before the Reference Court, challenged the adequacy of compensation and thereafter received enhanced compensation of Rs 72,677.33. The Court held that after invoking the statutory remedy and accepting the benefit flowing from it, the appellant could not be permitted to take a contradictory stand and claim that the acquisition itself was non-existent.
The Bench observed that a litigant cannot be allowed to "blow hot and cold" or change stands in different proceedings for pecuniary advantage. It held that the acquisition had attained finality and the challenge to it was not sustainable.
However, the Court found that the appellant's claim regarding payment of only one-third compensation required verification. The Bench directed respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to verify whether the compensation paid to the appellant was restricted to one-third of the amount assessed by the Collector and enhanced by the Reference Court on the basis of his alleged status as tenant.
The Court further directed that if it is found that only one-third compensation was paid, the authorities shall release the balance amount along with statutory interest within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of along with the connected application. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
