SHAKEEB QURESHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The background facts of the instant petition are that the petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 3 Kanals and 8 Marlas falling under Khasra No. 854, 854/1 and 869, situated at Harwan, Srinagar. Out of this land a portion of it measuring 2 Kanals is situated within an area of 100 meters from the boundary of the Ancient Monastery and Stupa at Village Harwan, and therefore, falls within the "Prohibited Area" under and in terms of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958(24 of 1958) and, as such, allowing any kind of activity including the establishment of a Sheep Farm thereon, which the petitioner intended to establish, would be detrimental to the preservation of the Ancient Monastery and Stupa situated at New Theed Harwan.

(2.) Taking these facts into consideration, this chunk of land was acquired by the Archeological Survey of India. In the process of the acquisition, the possession of the land was taken by the department on the request of the petitioner, after taking resort to Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, but without complying with the mandate of Section 17 (A) Land Acquisition Act. The Records revealthat on the representation of the petitioner in the matter, the competent authority initiated the process for the assessment of compensation payable to the petitioner in law on account of the Acquisition of his Proprietary Land measuring 2 Kanal falling under Khasra No. 854, 854/1 and 869 situated at Harwan, Srinagar, and that a sum of Rs. 46.00 lacs was assessed as compensation due and payable to the petitioner on accountof the expropriation of the above mentioned proprietary. Inspite of the fact that the compensationamount has been already sanctioned with further directions commanding the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 to have the sanctioned amount of compensation deposited with respondent No. 8 to facilitate timely payment of compensation to the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have been without any reason dragging feet in the matter obviously for extraneous considerations procrastinating the payment of sanctioned amount of compensation to the petitioner, which is his legitimate due as a matter of Constitutionally Guaranteed Right.

(3.) The intentional delay on the part of respondent No. 4 in particular, in proceedings in the matter in accordance with the mandate of the competent authority sanctioning the payment of the assessed compensation amount to the petitioner is borne from the records. The sanction accorded for the payment lapsed,as a consequence of which, the petitioner had to approach the competent authority again to have the sanction for payment of compensation renewed/revalidated which was accordingly done as is evident from the orders dated 20.06.2014 and 206.2014. Despite this fact, the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in particular respondent No. 4 have failed to do as was required to be done in faithful compliance with the orders of the competent authority dated 20.06.2014 and 206.2014 to facilitate respondent No. 8 release/disbursement of sanctioned compensation amount in the sum of Rs. 46.00 lacs to the petitioner.