Court rules no proprietary land of petitioners utilized in road construction; dismisses petition under Article 300-A
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, presided over by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, dismissed a petition filed by Mohd Sultan Dar and others, seeking compensation for the alleged utilization of their proprietary land for road construction under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme. The petitioners claimed that their land, situated in Village Khrewan Lassipora, District Kulgam, was used without demarcation or compensation.
The court's decision was based on a demarcation and status report conducted by the competent revenue authority, which revealed that the road in question traverses through Kahcharai land and State land, not the proprietary land of the petitioners. As such, the constitutional protection under Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution, which guards against the deprivation of property without lawful authority, was deemed inapplicable.
Justice Nargal emphasized that no proprietary rights exist in Kahcharai land, which is state-owned and reserved for community use. Consequently, the petitioners' claim for compensation was untenable. The court highlighted that the claim for compensation arises only when proprietary land is acquired or utilized by the state, which was not the case here.
The court further noted that the petitioners failed to provide any credible evidence to challenge the findings of the demarcation report. The official report, filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Kulgam and supported by an affidavit, conclusively established that the road passes through land recorded as Kahcharai and State land.
The judgment also referenced previous cases, such as Habibullah Sheikh v. State of J&K and Ghulam Mohammad Bhat v. State, which clarify that Kahcharai land can be acquired for public purposes and compensation is payable to the concerned Panchayat for community welfare.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the relief sought was unsustainable in law, as the fundamental premise of the petitioners' claim—utilization of their proprietary land—was disproven.
Bottom line:-
Compensation claim for land allegedly utilized for road construction - Petition dismissed as demarcation report establishes no proprietary land of petitioners was utilized.
Statutory provision(s): Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
