S. NASEEB SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is assailed in the present petition, is a decision dated 3.6.1991 taken by a High Level Committee of the Government in its 14th meeting 'where under the property of petitioner was taken under a package deal. According to petitioner's case, property of petitioner was acquired and bought for widening of Shaheed Ganj Road in Srinagar city. Petitioner had some proprietary land besides 1 kanal 8 marlas and 81 sft Nazool land , which was also in possession of petitioner. Petitioner had constructed residential house on the said land. In the High Level Committee of the Officers under the chairmanship of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, a package deal was settled with the petitioner where under the property was taken over and an amount of Rs. 8.00 lacs was settled as compensation for the land under and appurtenant to the structures besides an amount of Rs. 1.46 lacs as incentive , subject to handing over of the possession of the land free from all encumbrances to the department before 01.8.1991 and withdrawal of the case from the court. Under the package deal, the government also promised free plots to the residents owner (s) against cash payment. In Housing Colony. This package deal was accepted and property handed over after accepting the compensation. It has not been indicated in the petition, whether any plot has been acquired by the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid package deal or not.

(2.) PETITIONER after handing over the property under the deal, has approached this court after ten years seeking to challenge the aforesaid decision( deal ) dated 3.6.1991 on the sole ground that the land which was acquired for widening of the road, has been utilized for construction of the shopping complex and the shops given on rent to the people . According to petitioner, public purpose for which the property was taken over, has not been achieved rather the property of the petitioner has been taken over under the threat of compulsory acquisition , as such action of the respondents is unconstitutional. It is further stated that if the property would have remained with the petitioner, he would have utilized the same for commercial purposes and made fortune. However, he has been deprived of the same by the respondents.

(3.) IN response to the challenge of the petitioner to the acquisition, it is stated in the counter filed in the court, that the land was required for public purpose namely for widening of the Shahid Ganj Road. After utilization of part of the land for the above said purpose, the surplus land has been utilized for construction of shopping complex to accommodate the shop keepers, whose shops were demolished for purposed of widening of the road near Jahangir Hotel, Srinagar.