Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Parshotma Devi vs Union Of India on 13 August, 2025
Sr. No. 92 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 23.07.2025
Pronounced on: 13.08.2025
OWP No. 1093/2004 c/w
OWP No. 1142/2009
WP(C) No. 2872/2023
OWP No.1093/2004
1. Parshotma Devi, Aged 60 years
W/O Late Narinder Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
2. Sudarshan Singh, Aged 42 years
S/O Late Narinder Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
3. Varinder Singh, Aged 36 years
S/O Late Narinder Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
4. Rattna Devi, Aged 65 years
Wife of Late Sh. Joginder Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
5. Vikas Thakur, Aged 38 years
S/O Late Sh. Joginder Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil and District Udhampur
6. Vishal Thakur, Aged 36 years
S/O Late Sh. Joginder Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil and District Udhampur
7. Rajinder Singh, Aged 64 years
Son of Late Sukhdev Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
8. Ravinder Singh, Aged 54 years,
Son of Late Sukhdev Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
2
9. Shakuntla Devi, Aged 79 years
Daughter of Late Sukhdev Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
10. Neelam Devi, Aged 49 years
Daughter of Late Sukhdev Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
11. Sunita Devi, Aged 44 years,
Daughter of Sukhdev singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
12. Asha Devi, Aged 82 years
W/O Late Balbir Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
13. Nisha Rani, Aged 28 years
Daughter of Late Balbir Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
14. Pardeep Singh, Aged 27 years
Son of Late Balbir Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
15. Neha, Aged 24 years
Daughter of Late Balbir Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
16. Jasbir Singh, Aged 54 years
Son of Late Sansar Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
17. Dalbir Singh, Aged 52 years
Son of Late Sansar Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
18. Raghbir Singh, Aged 45 years
Son of Late Sansar Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
3
19. Mohinder Singh, Aged 62 years
Son of Late Moti Singh,
R/O Village Omara ..... Petitioner(s)
Tehsil & District Udhampur
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv with
Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate.
VS
1. Union of India ..... Respondent(s)
through Defence Secretary, New Delhi.
2. Commandant 32 BN,CRPF, Udhampur.
3. State of J&K
Through Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur
4. General Manager, State Road Transport Corporation,
Udhampur.
5. Superintending Engineer, PWD, Udhampur.
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC for R-1&2.
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-3.
None for R-4.
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-5.
OWP No. 1142/2009
1. Parshotma Devi, Aged 60 years
W/O Late Narinder Singh,
R/O village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
2. Sudarshan Singh, Age 42 years
S/O Late Narinder Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
3. Varinder Singh, Aged 36 years
S/O Late Narinder Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
4. Rattna Devi, Aged 65 years
Wife of Late Sh. Joginder Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
4
5. Vikas Thakur, Aged 38 years
S/O Late Sh. Joginder Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil and District Udhampur
6. Vishal Thakur, Aged 36 years
S/O Late Sh. Joginder Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil and District Udhampur
7. Rajinder Singh, Aged 64 years
Son of Late Sukhdev Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
8. Ravinder Singh, Aged 54 years,
Son of Late Sukhdev Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
9. Shakuntla Devi, Aged 79 years
Daughter of Late Sukhdev Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
10. Neelam Devi, Aged 49 years
Daughter of Late Sukhdev Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
11. Sunita Devi, Aged 44 years,
Daughter of Sukhdev singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
12. Asha Devi, Aged 82 years
W/O Late Balbir Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
13. Nisha Rani, Aged 28 years
Daughter of Late Balbir Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
14. Pardeep Singh, Aged 27 years
Son of Late Balbir Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
5
15. Neha, Aged 24 years
Daughter of Late Balbir Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
16. Jasbir Singh, Aged 54 years
Son of Late Sansar Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
17. Dalbir Singh, Aged 52 years
Son of Late Sansar Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
18. Raghbir Singh, Aged 45 years
Son of Late Sansar Singh
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
19. Mohinder Singh, Aged 62 years
Son of Late Moti Singh,
R/O Village Omara
Tehsil & District Udhampur
20. Sushma Devi, Age 42 years
D/O Lt. Sh. Narinder Singh, ..... Petitioner(s)
W/O Suran Singh, R/O C 22
Gandhi Nagar Police Line.
21. Bawita D/O Lt. Sh. Narinder Singh.
R/O C 22,
Gandhi Nagar Police Line.
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate.
Vs
1. Union of India . Respondent(s)
through Defence Secretary,
New Delhi.
2. Commandant 32 BN,CRPF, Udhampur.
3. State of J&K
through Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur
4. General Manager, State Road Transport Corporation,
Udhampur.
5. Superintending Engineer, PWD, Udhampur.
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
6
Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC for R-1&2.
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-3.
None for R-4.
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-5.
WP(C) No. 2872/2023
1. Shakti Devi, Age 61 years ..... Petitioner(s)
W/O Late Sh. Surinder Singh,
R/O Ward No. 17,
H. No. 239, Link road,
Near Santosh Mata Mandir, Omara
District Udhampur,
PIN Code 182101.
2. Vikram Singh, Age 32 years,
S/O Late Sh. Surinder Singh,
R/O Ward No. 17, H. No. 239,
Link Road, Near Santosh Mata Mandir,
Omara,
District Udhampur
PIN Code 182101.
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate.
VS
1. Union of India through
Defence Secretary, New Delhi.
2. Commandant 32 BN,
CRPF, Udhampur.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur
4. General Manager, State Road Transport Corporation,
Udhampur. . Respondent(s)
5. Superintending Engineer,
PWD Udhampur.
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC for R-1&2.
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-3.
None for R-4.
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-5.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
7
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. In all the three writ petitions, common question of fact and law is
involved and, therefore, all these petitions are heard analogously and proposed
to be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Shorn of minute details, facts which give rise to filing of these
petitions are separately, as follows:
In OWP No.1093/2004
3. The petitioners are owners to the extent of their share in land
measuring 28 kanal 2 Marlas situated at Udhampur, under Khasra Nos.76/1,
315/76, and 313/75, which has been under illegal possession of J&K State Road
Transport Corporation (SRTC) since long; that the land was never legally
acquired by the respondents, and illegal possession of J&K SRTC continued
until 20.09.1994; that from 21.09.1994, the possession of the land measuring 29
kanal 1 Marla (including petitioners’ land) was transferred to respondent No.2;
that proceedings were initiated for payment of compensation to the petitioners,
but the matter was never finalized; that due to continued dispute, the petitioners
had earlier filed Writ Petition No.725/2000, which was disposed of by the High
Court vide Judgment dated 26.02.2002; that in the said judgment, the court
found that compensation had not been paid to the petitioners and directed the
respondents to finalize and pay compensation within 3 months from the date of
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
8
the judgment; that it is averred in the petition that despite court’s direction, the
petitioners repeatedly approached the respondents, particularly, respondent no.3,
but no compensation was paid and delayed the matter on one pretext or the other
and the petitioners filed a contempt petition being COA(OW) No.258/2002 for
violating the court’s earlier judgment and that in the meanwhile, respondent no.2
started raising construction on the land without paying the compensation or
settling the matter with the petitioners; and that the said construction raised by
the respondents is affecting the petitioners’ rights and hence the present petition.
OWP No. 1142/2009
4. The petitioners are owners to the extent of their share in land
measuring 28 kanal 2 Marlas situated at Udhampur, under Khasra Nos.76/1,
315/76, and 313/75, which has been under illegal possession of J&K State Road
Transport Corporation (SRTC) since long; that the land was never legally
acquired by the respondents, and illegal possession of J&K SRTC continued
until 20.09.1994; that from 21.09.1994, the possession of the land measuring 29
kanal 1 Marla (including petitioners’ land) was transferred to respondent No.2;
that proceedings were initiated for payment of compensation to the petitioners,
but the matter was never finalized; that due to continued dispute, the petitioners
had earlier filed Writ Petition No.725/2000, which was decided by the High
Court vide Judgment dated 26.02.2002; that in the said judgment, the court
found that compensation had not been paid to the petitioners and directed the
respondents to finalize and pay compensation within 3 months from the date of
the judgment; that it is averred in the petition that despite court’s direction, the
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
9
petitioners repeatedly approached the respondents, particularly, respondent no.3,
but no compensation was paid and delayed the matter on one pretext or the other
and the petitioners filed a contempt petition being COA(OW) No. 258/2002 for
violating the court’s earlier judgment, in which respondent no.3 informed the
court that he has already passed an order dated 02.11.2004 (impugned order) by
virtue of which he has given finding that he could not decide the issue as
directed by this court; that this court on the basis of reply filed in the contempt
petition by the respondents dismissed the contempt petition filed by the
petitioners; that prior to decision of the contempt petition, the petitioners filed
another writ petition namely OWP No. 1093/2004 on the facts stated supra.
OWP No. 2872/2023
5. The petitioners, Shakti Devi and another, are the lawful owners to the
extent of their share in land measuring 28 Kanal 2 Marlas, situated in Village
Omara, Tehsil and District Udhampur, bearing Khasra Nos. 76/1, 315/76, and
313/75. The land in question was never formally acquired by the respondents
through any lawful process. However, the J&K State Road Transport
Corporation (J&K SRTC) took illegal possession of the land and retained it up
to 20.09.1994, using it for its transport yard.
5.1. That, subsequently, on 21.09.1994, the possession of the said land,
including the petitioners’ land, measuring a total of 29 Kanal 1 Marla, was
handed over to Respondent No. 2. Despite such transfer, no compensation was
ever paid to the petitioners or their predecessors for the said land.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
10
5.2. That, the petitioners, as early as 03.07.1986, had represented their
grievance to Respondent No. 3 regarding the illegal possession of their land and
sought necessary action. The Transport Department, in its letter dated
18.04.1994, admitted that no compensation had been paid either to the
petitioners or their predecessors for the occupation of their land.
5.3. That, further, on 26.04.1997, Respondent No. 3 reiterated through an
official communication that compensation for the petitioners’ land had not been
paid and stated that steps would be taken to process the payment of
compensation.
5.4. That, due to continued inaction, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.
725/2000 before this Court. The said writ petition was decided on 26.02.2002,
whereby this Court held that compensation had not been paid and directed the
respondents to finalize and pay the compensation to the petitioners within three
months from the date of the judgment. However, despite repeated follow-ups,
the respondents failed to comply with the court’s direction and continued to
delay payment on one pretext or another, leaving the petitioners without any
remedy. As a result, the petitioners were compelled to file a contempt petition.
5.5. In blatant disregard of the pending issues, Respondent No. 2 began
unauthorized construction on the disputed land without resolving the
compensation matter or paying the petitioners. Additionally, the petitioners
challenged the order dated 02.11.2004, passed by Respondent No. 3, wherein he
avoided deciding the issue of compensation, despite the clear mandate of this
Court. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
11
Objections on behalf of respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur
6. It is averred in the objections filed on behalf of Deputy Commissioner,
Udhampur that the writ petitions involve disputed question of facts, which
cannot be adjudicated upon by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction; that the
petitioners filed Writ Petition No.725/2000 before this court, which was
disposed of by this court on 26.02.2002 with the directions that petitioners
would appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur who would
determine, among other things, as to when land was acquired, who were entitled
to the compensation and to whom the compensation has been paid, and whether
the compensation has actually been paid to the land owners or not; that in the
meantime, petitioners filed contempt petition bearing COA(OW) No.258/2002;
that, in compliance to the order dated 26.02.2002 passed by this Court, the
respondent passed the order dated 02.11.2004 and this court disposed of the
contempt petition after considering the order (supra) passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Udhampur, by giving liberty to the petitioners to avail
appropriate legal remedy; that in view of order dated 02.11.2004 passed by the
Deputy Commissoner, Udhampur, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and,
thus, is liable to be dismissed.
Objections on behalf of respondent-JKSRTC
7. It is stated in the objections that the writ petitions are not maintainable
as the answering respondent i.e. the J&K State Road Transport Corporation, has
not been made a necessary party; that this procedural lapse makes the entire writ
petitions defective and are liable to be dismissed; that no relief can be granted
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
12
against a party that has not been properly impleaded, thereby vitiating the
maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court; that the land
measuring 11 kanals and 1 marla, falling in khasra No.315/76, was acquired
lawfully in the year 1951 by the then Govt. Transport Undertaking (GTU)
through the PWD (R&B) agency; that compensation at the rate of Rs.150 per
kanal was paid, totally Rs.1657.50, which was remitted to the office of Tehsildar
Udhampur for disbursement; that further official correspondences including
those from the Executive Engineer and Deputy Commissioner, confirmed the
compensation and did not object to the transfer of land in favour of the
respondent-Corporation; that the petitioners have raised the issue after an
unexplained delay of 35 years, which is both unreasonable and legally fatal to
their claim; that such delay disqualifies them from seeking equitable relief under
writ jurisdiction; that respondent submits that possession was confirmed by
respondent no.3 in the impugned order and it was neither unauthorized nor
illegal; that respondent also acquired an additional 20 kanals of land through the
PWD(R&B) agency for the construction of transport yard facilities and
compensation whereof was calculated at Rs.150.00 per kanal for cultivable land
and Rs.50.00 for barren land, totally Rs.2583.75; that out of this, 18 kanals and
18 marlas belonged to Sh. Amar Nath Rajput, who was duly paid and the rest
belonged to others, for whom no agreement could be reached. Furthermore,
compensation of Rs.7590.00 was paid for 1 kanal 2 marlas of land in khasra
No.317/77, as per award dated 04.05.1973, which was confirmed by the
Collector. It is lastly prayed that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, as
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
13
the land was acquired lawfully and compensation was paid to rightful owners.
The record of such transactions, although currently untraceable, was confirmed
through official communications. It is prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed
out rightly with hefty costs.
8. In the objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is
contended that the present petitions are not maintainable for non joinder of party
as it has been admitted in the writ petitions that the land belonging to the
petitioners was illegally in possession of J&K SRTC and not by answering
respondents, therefore, on this count only, the petitions are not maintainable
against respondents 1 and 2.
Objections on behalf of respondent no.5-PWD(R&B)
9. It is contended in the objections that disputed questions of facts have
been raised in these petitions, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court in
exercise of writ jurisdiction; that although respondent no. 5 has been arrayed as
respondent in the petitions, but no relief is sought against respondent no.5.
Hence, it is prayed that respondent no. 5 be deleted from the array of
respondents.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record and
considered the matter.
11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest were owners in possession of the subject
land measuring 28 kanal and 2 marlas comprising of Khasra Nos. 76/1, 315/76,
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
14
313/75, which was initially taken over by the Government machinery in District
Udhampur to set up a Transport Yard for the Government Transport
Undertaking and later remained under the possession of J&K State Road
Transport Corporation which was formed in placed of the Government
Transport Undertaking till 20.09.1994 and thereafter the District Administration
made this land available to the Central Forces deployed for internal security and
that this piece of land is currently under the possession of the respondent-Central
Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and that the land owners have neither been paid
any rent of land nor the land has been acquired so as to pay compensation to the
land owners.
12. He further argued that a portion of land measuring 7 kanals
comprising of Khasra No.313/75 came under dispute before the Estate Officer,
Udhampur before 1991 and against order of the Estate Officer vide order dated
19.03.1991 under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act passed the order in a dispute between one Janak Raj and
Sukhdev Singh (Predecessors in interest of the petitioners) against which a
miscellaneous appeal came to filed before the District Court, Udhampur and
vide judgment dated 30.05.1998, the learned District Judge held that in view of
the record produced by the Government Departments that the land belong to
respondent Sukhdev Singh (predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners herein)
and the proceedings initiated for the eviction of the unauthorized occupants was
held to be without any jurisdiction as the land in question could not be deemed
to be a public premises so as to attract the provisions of the Public Premises
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
15
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, and the order passed by the Estates
Officer was set aside.
13. Building his argument on this analogy of the judgment of the District
Judge, Mr. Sethi has argued that whole of the subject land is the proprietary land
of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and the same having not been
acquired properly is still owned by the land owners who have not even been paid
their rent of the land in question. He further argued that the land owners invoked
the writ jurisdiction of this court in OWP No. 725/2000 and vide judgment/order
dated 26.02.2002, the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur being Collector was
directed to decide the matter after giving proper opportunity of being heard to
the petitioners therein and all other land owners and also to the respondents
determine some disputed questions of facts with regard to the acquisition,
entitlement to compensation and payment made if any, however, the Deputy
Commissioner in his order dated 02.11.2004 kept his hands off by stating that he
has been unable to decide the issues ordered to be decided as directed by this
court and order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was made subject matter in
another writ petition OWP No. 1142/2009 to seek setting aside of the same.
14. Learned senior counsel argued that the impugned order is prima facie
flawed as it disregards this court’s directions issued on 26.02.2002 in OWP
No.725/2000, whereby respondent no.3 was to determine the petitioners’
ownership and their entitlement to compensation; that respondent no.3 ignored
revenue records and government communications supporting petitioners’
ownership and claim for compensation; that the order impugned was passed
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
16
without examining the revenue reports indicating the petitioners’ entitlement
and without following due process; that important documents like the letters
dated 03.07.1986, 26.04.1997, and the judgment dated 30.05.1998 titled “Janak
Raj v. Estate Officer, Udhampur and anr.’ passed by learned District Judge were
not considered while passing the impugned order, which confirmed the land as
private property not belonging to SRTC; that respondent no.3 issued the order
without responding to the writ petitioners’ claims and without addressing crucial
legal documents, reflecting clear illegality; that respondent no.2 also failed to
justify their possession or use of the land, while respondent no.4 did not submit
any supporting documents in their response. Lastly, it is prayed that the
impugned order be quashed and respondents be directed to vacate the land of the
petitioners or to acquire the land formally after following due process of law.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents-UOI and CRPF submits that these
respondents do not need to acquire the land and it is the duty of the State/UT to
provide accommodation to the CRPF Bn. which has been stationed there for
internal security. He submits that it is for the UT/State Government to provide
the infrastructure for this purpose and that the CRPF Units stationed in the
subject land can shift to any other place to be provided to them. As such, these
respondents have nothing to do with the acquisition of the land or to pay
compensation to the land owners.
16. Though no counsel appeared on behalf of respondent-JKSRTC, however,
as per the objections filed by it, the Government Transport Undertaking had
acquired 11 kanals and 1 marla of the land comprising of Khasra No.315/76
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
17
lawfully in the year 1951 through Public Works Department against total
compensation of Rs.1657.00 and that the land owners after unexplained delay of
35 years are disqualified from seeking equitable relief under writ jurisdiction;
that 18 kanals 18 marlas of land had also been taken over and a compensation of
Rs.2583.75 had been paid to land owner Amar Nath Rajput, however, no
agreement could be reached with other land owners.
17. The petitioners in the year 2004 filed OWP No. 1093/2004 seeking
restraint orders to the respondents from raising any construction over the subject
land without proper acquisition. The petitioners in the year 2009 through OWP
No. 1142/2009 sought to set aside of the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner whereby he had shown his inability to decide the matter as
directed by this court vide judgment dated 26.02.2002 passed in OWP No.
725/2000. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 2872/2023 have also filed a petition
seeking direction to the respondents to restrain respondent CRPF from raising
any construction without resolving the compensation matter and also sought
quashment of the order dated 02.11.2004 passed by respondent-Deputy
Commissioner, Udhampur, wherein he had allegedly avoided deciding the issue
of compensation despite the clear mandate of this court.
18. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, who is also
Collector of the District, has not specifically pleaded anything except that the
Deputy Commissioner had already passed the order dated 02.11.2004 pursuant
to the orders passed by this court in OWP No. 725/2000. Respondent-Public
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
18
Works Department (PWD) has not taken a stand and stated that no relief has
been sought against them.
19. The petitioners, in all the three petitions, claiming to be owners on the
basis of inheritance of the land measuring 28 kanals 2 marlas comprising of
khasra Nos.76/1, 315/76, and 313/75 alleged that their land had been under
illegal possession of the respondent-JKSTRC up to 20.09.1994 and that this land
came under the possession of respondent-CRPF w.e.f. 21.09.1994. It was
alleged that the respondents have occupied and used the petitioners’ land
without paying them any rentals thereof or compensation.
20. The petitioners, initially, filed writ petition OWP No. 725/2000 with
regard to the subject matter, which was disposed of by this court, vide judgment
dated 26.02.2002. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced for
convenience:
“Petitioner submits that his land has been acquired, but
the compensation has not been paid.
The stand taken by the J&K State Road Transport
Corporation is that the land was acquired and compensation
was paid to the father of the petitioners No.1 and 2 and some
other owners also. For this reliance is being placed on a
communication dated 31st Jan 1968. The question as to whether
the payment has been made or not is a disputed question of
fact. Even otherwise Annexure R-1 (dated 31.01.1968) is not
proof of the fact that the payment in fact has been released in
favour of the claimants. Therefore, the petitioners would
appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, who is
also Collector of the District. The Collector would determine
the following disputed questions of facts:
i) as to when the land was acquired;
ii) as to who were entitled to the compensation;
iii) as to whom the compensation has been paid;
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
19
iv) Whether the compensation has actually been paid to the
land owners or not.
Parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner,
Collector, Udhampur on 02.04.2002. The Deputy
Commissioner, Collector, Udhampur after giving proper
opportunity to the petitioners and other land owners and the
respondents who figure in this petition, would decide the matter
within a further period of three months. If any amount is not
disbursed then that be not disbursed till the matter is decided by
the Deputy Commissioner, Collector.
Disposed of accordingly.”
21. As per the objections filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur,
in compliance to the judgment dated 26.02.2002, the Deputy Commissioner
addressed the issue in his order dated 02.11.2004, the operative portion whereof
is reproduced as:
“After hearing the arguments from counsel for petitioner
and counsel for respondents and detailed examination of the
records which they have produced before me, I came to
conclusion that counsel for petitioner and counsel for
respondents failed to produce concrete evidence in support of
their ownership and possession. They have simply narrated the
facts which are already available on records and none of the
counsel have produced new evidence like original copy of sale
deed, record of proceeding for land acquisition like notification
under Section 4(1), acquaintance roll for land acquisition,
details of the payment made, entry regarding transfer of land
etc.As such it is very difficult to determine the exact details like
as to when land was acquired, as to who are entitled to
compensation, as to whom compensation has been paid,
2025:JKLHC-JMU:136120
whether the compensation has actually been paid to land
owners or not.
However, after detailed scrutiny of the records available on
the file I came to conclusion that the matter regarding
ownership of the disputed land has been agitated by the
petitioner after 35 years in 1980. Whereas the change in the
Girdawari and records of rights and other revenue records was
effected in year 1950. After 35 long years the matter was
agitated by the petitioners whereas the respondents are already
in the possession of the land in question since year 1950 till
date. As per revenue record and report submitted by Tehsildar
on 21.08.1985 the land under Khasra No.76/1 measuring 6
Kanal, 315/76 measuring 11 kanal-01 marla and 313/75
measuring 10 kanal-07 marla total measuring 27 kanal-8
marla situated at Moza Omara is recorded in ownership of
Sukhdev Singh and other and land under Khasra No.313/75
measuring 10 kanal-07 marlas is recorded since Rabi 1961 in
possession of Public Works Deptt due to sale deed and land
under Khasra No.76/1 min measuring 6 kanals is recorded in
Rabi 1957, and Khasra No. 315/76 measuring 11 kanal-01
marla recorded since Kharif 2010 BK in possession of
Transport Department and this position is continuing till date.
Nothing is rebuttle to the revenue record has been produced by
the petitioner.
Under Section 31 of land revenue act any entry made in
record of rights in accordance with the law for the time being
in force, or in an annual record in accordance with provision
of this chapter and the rules there under shall be presumed to
be true until the contrary is proved. Further if any person
considers himself aggrieved by an entry in record of rights he
2025:JKLHC-JMU:136121
may institute a suit before the Collector (Deputy Commissioner)
for the correction of the record, and for the possession of the
right claimed if he is not in possession thereof, within one year
(2 years in the case of Frontier Districts of Gilgit and Ladakh)
from the date of publication of the record of the distribution of
the assessment under section 49, sub section (1).
In the absence of record, the undersigned is unable to decide
the issues, ordered to be decided by the Hon’ble Court in
judgment dated 26.02.2002 passed in OWP No. 725 of 2000
tilted Moti Singh and others V/S State and others.”
22. A portion/parcel of the subject land measuring seven kanals
comprising of Khasra No.313/75 of Village Umara out of the subject land was
allegedly encroached upon by one Janak Raj and eviction proceedings against
him were initiated by the Estates Officer under the provisions of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and consequently vide
order dated 19.03.1991, he was ordered to be evicted.
23. A perusal of record would show that Civil Misc. Appeal No.42/1991
titled Janak Raj v. Estate Officer & Anr. came to be instituted on 18.04.1991
before the District Court, Udhampur against the order dated 19.03.1991 passed
by the Estate Officer, Udhampur, by virtue of which, eviction of the appellant
had been ordered. The learned District Judge, Udhampur vide judgment dated
30.05.1998 set aside the impugned order and observed that the premises
involved and the subject land, admittedly belonged to the respondent No.2-
Sukhdev Singh (one of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners), and the
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
22
premises in question was a private premises. In view of the judgment dated
30.05.1998 (supra), which is stated to be not assailed any further, as such, it is
claimed that the findings recorded by the District Court in its judgment, have
attained finality.
24. In the objections filed by the SRTC, it has been stated that the land in
question was acquired by Government Transport Undertaking, which later
became J&K State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1951, against some
payments through Public Works Department, meaning thereby, that the
petitioners’ proprietary land continues to be in possession of respondent since
1951, initially by Government Transport Undertaking, later by its new avatar
JKSRTC till 1994, when this land was made available to the Central Armed
Paramilitary Forces which was deployed for internal security and is currently
under the possession of respondent-Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).
25. From the pleadings of the parties, it has been found that the land
which is the subject matter of these writ petitions, owned by the petitioners or
their predecessors, was occupied and used initially by the Govt. Transport
Undertaking (GTU) on the basis of some private negotiations with the owner of
the land and later by J&K State Road Transport Corporation (JKSRTC) upto the
year 1994 and thereafter has been under the use and occupation of the Central
Reserve Police Force (CRPF) till now. The Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur
who is Collector of the District under the Revenue laws as well as Land
Acquisition Law, despite the directions of this court, in an earlier Writ Petition
(OWP No. 725/2000) vide judgment dated 26.02.2002 had failed to ascertain the
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
23
title of the land in his enquiry and has shown his inability to do so in the
impugned report/order dated 02.11.2004.
26. Even the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in a statutory appeal
under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, with
regard to a parcel of the land cannot be applied to whole of the land in question.
27. As per record, as indicated by the Deputy Commissioner Udhampur in
his order dated 02.11.2004 impugned herein, the subject land has been recorded
in the Revenue Record- 10 Kanals and 07 Marlas (Khasra No.313/75) in
possession of PWD on the basis of Sale Deed, 6 Kanals (Khasra No.76/1) and
11 kanals and One Marla (Khasra No.315/76) in possession of Transport
Department. Respondent-JKSRTC has claimed to have purchased another piece
of land measuring 20 Kanals through the agency of PWD (R&B) for
construction of kitchens and latrines and further improvement of transport yard.
The disputed questions of facts have been raised and are found involved, in
these petitions, particularly, petitioners claiming that their proprietary land has
been used and is under illegal possession of the respondents, whereas,
respondent-JKSRTC claims that the land was transferred to them on the basis of
private negotiations, which has also been reflected and recorded in the revenue
record. The reliance of the petitioners on the judgment of the District Court, in
the analogous case of eviction, with regard to a portion of the subject-land,
cannot be treated, as an absolute finding of fact on title of the land, between the
parties herein.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1361
24
28. Viewed thus, having regard to the disputed facts, this court is of the
considered opinion that under the writ jurisdiction, the matter cannot be decided,
which may require recording of evidence, for and against. As a result, all the
petitions are thus held to be non-maintainable and are dismissed. The
petitioners, however, shall be at liberty to work out their civil remedies and the
period spent on prosecution of these petitions shall not come in their way, in
respect of limitation. No order as to costs.
29. This common judgment shall be placed across all the three files.
30. Petitions are disposed of as dismissed. No order as to costs.
( (MA Chowdhary)
Judge
Jammu
13.08.2025
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is reportable? Yes
Whether the order is speaking? Yes