news details |
|
|
| HC directed PHE and DC Udhampur to assess compensation of land, appointment and cost RS10, 000 | | |
Jammu, October, 16:- Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court Jammu Wing in a writ petition filed by the owner of the land whose land was taken by the PHE for construction of reservoir, has directed Deputy Commissioner Udhampur that he shall assess the lease money of one Kanal land and also assess the compensation of land taken over by the PHE Department and PHE department shall also consider the claim of the daughter of the petitioner for appointment and petitioner also held entitled to cost of Rs 10,000/-, which shall be paid by the Department within a period of three months.
This landmark judgment passed in a writ petition filed by Sitan Devi widow of Amarnath who sacrificed his life Indo-China War in 1962, whose land situated at Village Chanunta District Udhampur, which was took over by PHE Department Udhampur for the construction water reservoir for providing water supply to inhabitants of the area. The case of the petitioner is that she was given assurance that her daughter will be appointed in terms of SRO 181 of 1988. The case of the petitioner that as per the direction of the High Court, she filed an application for consideration, which was rejected by the PHE Dept on July 25, 2002, the land, was acquired in the year 1987-1988.
Justice Nirmal Singh in approved for reporting judgment after hearing Advocate RK Gupta appearing for the petitioners and Additional Advocate General Mr. SC Gupta appearing for the state observed that it is admitted that neither the compensation has been assessed nor paid to the petitioners. Respondents in their objections have mentioned that the land of the petitioner was used for the construction of water reservoir in the year 1987-88, the department is ready to pay compensation. The Executive Engineer PHE Udhampur has written a letter to DC Udhampur on May6, 2006 that the compensation of land acquired by the Dept is to be paid in the light of the High Court order. The respondents have raised an objection that only 4 ½ Marlas of land belonging to the petitioner has been taken over but this stand of the respondents is contrary to the report of revenue agency, which shows that one Kanal land of the petitioner is under water reservoir.
Justice Nirmal Singh further observed that under the constitution of India and also under the State Constitution, the state has no right to take over the property of a citizen without following due process of law and without paying any compensation for the same. According to the respondent that the petitioner is claiming appointment for her daughter on the basis of SRO 181/1988, which stands rescinded by another SRO 214 of 1991, therefore, the question arises whether the petitioner can seek employment on the basis of the SRO, which was in existence, when their land was taken over. Court further observed that because the petitioner was deprived of his land and because in considerations his land having been taken over, he was extending unequivocal promises and assurance, respondents cannot be allowed to back out. Respondents are under legal obligation to fulfill their assurance and promises. With these observations court quashed the order of PHE dated July 25, 2002 and directed DC Udhampur to assess the lease money of one Kanal of land belonging to petitioner taken over by the respondent department with effect from the date it was taken over till today. The DC Udhampur shall also assessed compensation of the land into consideration the present market value and directed PHE dept to consider the claim of the petitioner’s daughter for appointment and the petitioner is also held entitled to cost of Rs 10,000/- which shall be paid by the respondent department within the period of three months. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
