LAWS(J&K)-2013-11-34

AKRAM RATHER Vs. STATE OF J. & K.

Decided On November 11, 2013
Akram Rather Appellant
V/S
STATE OF J. AND K. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Service Reservoir was required to be constructed at Wagam, Budgam J & K State Public Health Engineering Department in the year 1986 acquired land for this purpose. The said land belongs to one Mohammad Akram Rather son of Ghulam Mohammad Rather resident of Wagam Chadoora District Budgam - petitioner in the petition. The compensation was to be given to its owner-present petitioner. The petitioner insisted for employment in the department. Neither compensation nor has employment in the department been given till date to petitioner.

(2.) Land measuring 13 Marlas, according to petitioner, has been acquired by respondents in the year 1986 for construction of water tank at Wagam on the assurance to provide suitable employment to petitioner. Petitioner claims that he has given more than half of his land to respondents, on which water tank has long since been constructed. It is contended that petitioner approached respondents seeking benefits percolating from SRO 181 of 1988 dated 3rd June 1988, that provides that appointment of one member of the family, who are left with 50% or less of their agricultural land on account of the same having been acquired by Government for public purposes, shall be made without any reference to Recruitment Board concerned, against a post available at the lowest rank of the cadre for which such a person is eligible. The SRO further provides that in case vacancy is not available in the department that acquired the land, General Department shall make such appointment in any Department where the vacancy may be available.

(3.) The respondents in their reply state that respondent department acquired land measuring 11 Marlas for construction of reservoir so that drinking water is provided to the entire area. It is insisted that as per present status the land acquired is less than half kanal but not 50% of agricultural land of petitioner which clearly indicates that SRO 181 is not applicable in the case of petitioner and that said SRO was modified whereunder petitioner is entitled to compensation.