SUNDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached the Court seeking the quashment of order dated 01.11.2002 passed by respondent no.2 (Dy. Commissioner, Jammu) whereby the petitioner and proforma respondents have been declared to be not entitled for sharing the amount of land compensation, by issuance of writ of certiorari; and further commanding the respondent -authorities to release the amount of compensation in favour of the petitioner and proforma respondents in accordance with their shares as indicated in the award and apportionment statement attached thereto.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the petition, petitioner and proforma respondents claim to be co -sharers alongwith other contesting respondents with regard to the land containing khasra Nos. 467, 468, 460, 461, 465 min which has been acquired by Army under the J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (in short RAIP Act) and the compensation of the same has been deposited with the Collector by the indenting department. It is further contended that share of petitioner and other co -sharers is indicated in notice 'J at Sr.No. 69 to 72. The apportionment statement attached to the award reflects exactly the same position as is reflected in the award annexure 'A. The final assessment report issued by the Dy Commissioner (Collector) Jammu, on 24.05.1993 in respect of items 69 to 72 claiming to have recorded the names of the parties in ownership column, but in the cultivation column the names of the respondents are recorded. While issuing the assessment report, the Collector made a mention that the payment shall be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and guidelines issued by the Administrative department under no.Rev(LB) -10/80 dated 23.02.1980. The same apportionment already made continued in respect of the aforesaid items at the time of releasing the rental compensation after the requisitioning of the land on 14.01.1974, when the petitioner and other co -sharers were not being paid the amount of compensation, commenced proceeding before the Collector in seeking to restrain the contesting respondents from seeking the compensation under the J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968. The matter was, however, transferred to Additional Dy. Commissioner, Jammu, who vide his order dated 16.03.94 directed that all the recorded shareholders are entitled for compensation as per the recorded share without consideration of recorded 'Hissadari possession. Aggrieved by this order, the contesting respondents preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and the orderof the Additional Dy. Commissioner, Jammu, was set aside. The matter, however, did not end up here and further a revision was preferred by the petitioner and proforma respondents before the Financial Commissioner/Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu, the highest authorities in the revenue matters. While disposing of the said Revision, the Financial Commissioner, Jammu up held the findings of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, and the order passed by the Additional Dy. Commissioner that every share holder notwithstanding recorded in 'Hissadari possession is entitled for rental compensation, was quashed and the appeal of the petitioner to restrain the contesting respondents from receiving the rental compensation under the provisions of RAIP Act, 1968 stood rejected. Further plea of the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner seeking correction of entries in the Jamabandi in terms of section 32 of the land Revenue Act also did not succeed. So, ultimately, the Financial Commissioner in his order dated 6.6.2000 returned the findings that the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation of the said land. It is further stated that the petitioner also filed an application before the Dy. Commissioner, Jammu( The Competent Authority under the RAIP Act) for referring the case to an Arbitrator in terms of Section 8(1) (b) and (f) in asserting entitlement alongwith the proforma respondents for the full compensation of the land measuring 133 kanals 3 marlas acquired by the Army and till then compensation be not paid to the respondents. This application, however, stood rejected by the Competent Authority vide its order dated 19.11.98. This order of rejection dated 19.11.98 passed by the Competent Authority for referring the case to an Arbitrator under section 8 (1) (b) and (f) of RAIP Act, became the subject matter of challenge in OWP No.539/99 in this Court. A co -ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 7.9.2001 disposed of the writ petition in the following manner: - -

(3.) THE Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Jammu, (The competent Authority under RAIP Act, 1968) examined the award in compliance to the court direction referred to above, found that the petitioner and proforma respondents have no right to get the compensation of the acquired land of Khewat No. 39 and ordered that all the payment shall be made to the contesting respondents after keeping in view the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government vide No.LB -10 of 1980 dated 23.02.1980, in terms of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, the correctness of which has been impugned in this writ petition.