STATE OF J&K Vs. SITAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A chunk of land measuring 1 kanal in village Chanunta Tehsil Ramnagar, District Udhampur, owned by respondent No. 1, was taken over by the appellants in the year 1987-88 for construction of 15000 Gallon water reservoir to supply drinking water to the local population. It is admitted case of the parties that compensation was not paid to the respondent No. 1 in lieu of the aforesaid land. The appellant however, as pleaded by respondent No. 1, made a promise to provide government employment to one of her family members.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 felt aggrieved when the appellants did not keep their promise and approached the writ Court by filing SWP No. 626/2005. The respondents ' case was that because of the promise made and in terms of SRO 181/1988, the appellants have no obligation to provide government employment to one of her family members. It was insisted that no compensation had been paid to respondents after the aforesaid land was taken over and that after the acquisition, she was left with less than one half of agricultural land.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge on going through the pleadings and the record, lamented that a land in question owned by a war widow was taken over in 1987-88, without following the procedure laid down under Land Acquisition Act and that for about two decades neither any compensation was paid to the respondent No. 1 nor one of her family members was given government employment. The stand taken by the appellants that only four and a half Marlas of respondent No. 1 's proprietary land was taken over was found to be belied by the record maintained by the appellants, including the report received from the revenue agency. Learned Single Judge while rejecting the argument putforth by the appellants that once SRO 181/1988 was rescinded by SRO 214/1991, the respondent No. 1 could not claim any right under the rescinded SRO referred to the Division Bench Judgment in LPA (SW) No. 309/1996 decided on 29th December, 1999. The LPA Court relying on Calcutta Port Trust v. Deba Prasad Bag, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 454 and Hari Ram v. State and Ors., 1993 (3) SCT 87, held that "the concept to give appointment to a person whose land is acquired is a concept which has been judicially recognized " and that estate holder would be well within his rights to contend that up to the issuance of SRO 214/1991, he was entitled to get government employment in terms of the earlier SRO.