KRISHAN DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS for acquisition of land were initiated under Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property. Total area which was subject matter of acquisition was 1007 Kanals and 06 marlas. Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner Udhampur assessed compensation. Different rates were fixed for different classes of land. Classification of land and compensation allowed was as under: -

(2.) FURTHER fact is that some of the land owners were not satisfied with the compensation allowed. They sought enhancement through arbitration proceedings. Arbitrator allowed compensation at the rate of 70,000/ - per Kanal. This was challenged in this court. What was allowed by the Arbitrator was upheld by this court. Judgment dated 21.5.1996 be perused. Letters Patent Appeal was preferred. That was dismissed on 8 8.1996. The decision given by this court was challenged in the Supreme Court of India. Amount of compensation which was fixed by the Supreme Court of India is Rs.30,000/ - per kanal. This decision was given by the Supreme Court of India on 8.5.1997. Decision which was given by the Supreme Court of India is reported as Union of India and others Versus Chain Singh and others AIR 1997 SC 3000. Present petitioners whose land was acquired and who had not sought enhancement of the compensation now seek enhancement of the compensation. It is submitted that they should also be allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/ - per kanal. In para 8 of the petition it is submitted that petitioners received payment of compensation under protest. It is submitted that they are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/ - per kanal. Fact pleaded is that acquisition was under same notification. It is, therefore, urged that there is no justification to deny the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/ - per kanal.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have controverted the allegations. Basic stand taken by them is that the petitioners had received compensation without protest. They never made any request for enhancement of the compensation. It is accordingly submitted that they cannot seek direction to the effect that arbitrator should be appointed and compensation should be paid at the enhanced rate.