STATE TIMES NEWS
SRINAGAR: The Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar held that under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, if any land is acquired, the land holders are only entitled to fair compensation and nothing more. There is no question of any employment under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner by means of the petition, wants a direction to be issued commanding respondents to pay proper and suitable compensation as per market value to petitioners for their land situate at Panzgam, Kupwara and to process the case of petitioner for appointment in the Government Department.
The petitioners alleged that the possession of their land was taken over for the construction of Panchayat Ghar without paying compensation with the understanding that one of them would be appointed in the department on substantive basis and subsequently respondents appointed petitioner no.1 vide order dated July 4, 1983 on temporary basis. Petitioners now want that either son of the petitioner no.1 may be granted a job or petitioners be paid adequate compensation for acquired land. The petitioners have not mentioned any date on which land was acquired or the date on which the possession was taken over by respondents. The pleadings indicate that petitioner no. 1 was provided employment on July 4, 1983, which means that land must have been acquired prior to that. In respect of the land taken over by respondents way back in the year 1983 or before, the petitioners have approached the Court by means of writ petition in 2020. This inordinate delay in filing the writ petition is totally unexplained and cannot be countenanced for.
DB observed that in view of above, the petitioners are trying to make stale case which is virtually dead with the passage of time. Moreover, the petitioner No.1 having accepted the employment, may be on temporary basis, cannot turn around and ask for employment for his son i.e., petitioner no.5. DB further observed that the petitioners themselves state that the land was given by them with the clear assurance that petitioner no.1 will be appointed. There is nothing on record which may indicate that petitioners’ land was given for the purposes of constructing a Panchayat Ghar or there was any such assurance, as alleged by petitioners. The only fact on record is that petitioner no.1 was temporarily appointed on July 4, 1983 and he continued till reaching the age of superannuation.
DB said that even under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, if any land is acquired, the land holders are only entitled to fair compensation and nothing more. “There is no question of any employment under the provisions of the said Act. DB further observed that since there is nothing on record to establish that the land of petitioner was acquired in any manner and any assurance was extended to them for giving employment, we do not deem it fit and proper to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed,” the Court directed.