SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the release of land acquisition compensation to a Baramulla woman whose name is reflected in the revenue records, while directing that she furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to half of the compensation amount to safeguard the claims of rival legal heirs pending adjudication of a civil suit.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Atiqa Begum and others, affirming the judgment of the writ court that had refused to interfere with the Collector’s decision declining to refer the compensation dispute under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Senior Advocate Anupam Raina, assisted by Advocate Aswad Attar, appeared for the appellants. Deputy Advocate General Hakim Aman Ali represented the Union Territory and its officers, while Senior Advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, assisted by Advocates Kamil Nazir and Syed Gousia, appeared for respondent No. 5.
The dispute relates to land measuring 40 kanals and 17 marlas situated at Delina, Baramulla, originally owned by Abdul Ahad Ganie. Following his death, respondent No. 5 claimed ownership as the Khananeshin daughter on the strength of a long-standing mutation dating back to 1954 and an alleged will, while the appellants, descendants of another daughter of the deceased, challenged the mutation in 2024, alleging that it had been fraudulently attested and that they were entitled to a share in the estate.
Part of the land was subsequently acquired for the National Highway Bypass project. The appellants sought to restrain the authorities from releasing compensation exclusively to respondent No. 5 and requested the Collector to refer the dispute regarding entitlement to the civil court under Section 3H of the National Highways Act.
The Collector rejected the request, holding that the appellants were neither recorded as owners nor tenants in the revenue records and therefore could not be treated as persons entitled to compensation. The writ court upheld that decision, leading to the present appeal.
Before the Division Bench, the appellants argued that mutation entries do not confer title and that once rival claims regarding compensation existed, the Collector was statutorily bound to withhold payment and refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court.
The High Court, however, held that although mutation entries do not conclusively determine title, the Collector conducting land acquisition proceedings is required to proceed on the basis of the existing revenue records while determining compensation.
“It is well settled that entries in the revenue record are fiscal in nature and do not conclusively determine title; nevertheless, the Collector conducting acquisition proceedings is bound to proceed on the basis of the official records available at the relevant point of time for the purpose of assessment and disbursement of compensation,” the Bench observed.
The Court noted that the appellants were never recorded in the revenue records either as owners or persons in possession and had themselves challenged the mutation through separate proceedings, indicating that their rights were yet to be established.
“Prima facie, therefore, the appellants failed to establish any subsisting right, title, or interest in the acquired property,” the judgment said.
The Bench further held that the Collector had rightly treated respondent No. 5 as the sole “person interested” during the acquisition proceedings and was under no obligation to refer the matter under Section 3H merely because a civil dispute had subsequently been raised.
“This Court finds merit in the stand taken by the Collector in declining to make a reference under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956,” the Court held.
Rejecting the appellants’ contention that compensation should have been withheld, the Bench observed, “We therefore are of the firm view that the Collector was under no legal obligation to withhold disbursement of compensation merely because a civil dispute had been raised by the appellants.”
At the same time, the Court protected the appellants’ interests by making it clear that the compensation would remain subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit concerning ownership rights.
Noting a concession made on behalf of respondent No. 5 that the appellants could become entitled to half the compensation if they ultimately succeeded in the civil proceedings, the Court directed that respondent No. 5 would receive the compensation only after furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to one-half of the compensation amount before the competent civil court.
The Division Bench clarified that the pending civil suit would independently determine the parties’ proprietary rights and entitlement to the acquired land, and any compensation released would remain subject to the final outcome of those proceedings.
