CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD Vs. THAKUR DEWAKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal by the Chief Engineer and other officers of the State is directed against judgment and order dated 20.10.1999 rendered by the learned Single Judge while allowing OWP no. 915 of 1998. It has been held that the writ petitioner-respondent was entitled to payment of compensation of the land which has been acquired for construction of road by the PWD Department. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on letter dated 08.12.1995 (Annexure- D) to conclude that the land was acquired for construction of road and no compensation in lieu of the land owned by the writ petitioner-respondent was paid to him. Proceeding on the assumption that the land was taken over more than three decades back for the construction of the road, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to ensure that compensation in accordance with law is assessed and paid to the writ petitioner-respondent. A further direction has also been issued to take notice of the observations made by Hon 'ble the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. v. Shri Dharam Dass (1995) 5 SCC 638. Accordingly, the compensation was to be assessed and paid to the writ petitioner-respondent alongwith interest as per the statutory provisions under the J&K Land Acquisition Act within a period of three months from the date a copy of the order was made available to the authorities.2. Mrs. Seema Shekhar, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the land in fact was donated by the writ petitionerrespondent in the year 1972 and no payment of compensation for such donated land before the year 1977 was required to be paid. According to the learned counsel, the communication dated 08.12.1995 (Annexure-D) itself indicate that no compensation was payable in respect of the land occupied with possession before the year 1977. Another submission made by her is that the claim made by the writ petitioner-respondent is hit by delay and laches. 3. Mr. Thakur, learned senior counsel has however submitted that the appellant or the State of J&K has not been able to show from the record that the land was ever donated without any compensation by the writ petitioner-respondent. According to the learned counsel the Government business is not transacted by oral statements particularly when it belongs to acquiring or occupying the land of a State subject. Answering the argument with regard to delay, learned counsel has submitted that the writ petitionerrespondent has approached the Authorities in the year 1993 (Annexure-B) and, therefore, objection with regard to delay cannot be raised. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, we are of the considered view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court except as noticed hereinafter. It is well settled that the land is acquired by the State as and when requisition is made by any instrumentality of the State or the Department of the State. In that regard, reliance is placed on the observations made by Hon 'ble the Supreme Court on a judgment of 7-Judge Constitution Bench rendered in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust and anr. v. Vithal Rao and ors. (1973) 1 SCC 500. It has remained undisputed that the writ petitionerrespondent was deprived of the land and he was not paid any compensation. The revenue record attached with the writ petition has been read out to us which conclusively show that the writ petitioner-respondent is the owner of the land (Annexure-C). If that be so, then the right of the writ petitioner-respondent to receive compensation is perfected. We also find merit in the contention that the Government business is not transacted orally and if there was any gift or donation of the land given by the writ petitioner-respondent then the least which was expected that an entry in the revenue record would have been made to that effect. Therefore, there is no evidence on the record to the contrary to show that the writ petitioner-respondent has donated the land for construction of the road. Accordingly, the view taken by the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld. The writ petitionerrespondent is entitled to payment of compensation at the rate when he was deprived of the land alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum. 5. The judgment of Hon 'ble the Supreme Court in Dharam Dass 's case (supra) which is the basis of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge would not be required to be considered in respect of advance possession of the land because to that extent the judgment stand overruled in the case of Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2002) 1 SCC 142. However, we wish to clarify that the principles of assessing compensation as laid down in the J&K land Acquisition Act, 1990 shall be followed and compensation be paid by adding all other statutory factors. 6. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed alongwith CMA(s).