SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the authorities to allot four kanals of State or Jammu Development Authority (JDA) land of similar value to the legal heirs of a woman whose land was acquired for a road project, after finding that a portion of the alternative land awarded to her in 1994 had never been handed over.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while allowing an appeal filed by Raj Sharma (Bharti), set aside a December 2, 2013, judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jammu, and directed the authorities to identify and allot four kanals of equivalent-value land in place of the land recorded under Khasra No. 344 at Village Khanpur. The court directed that possession of the alternative land be handed over to the appellant and the legal heirs, if any, of her deceased brother, Kailash Nath Sharma, within three months of receipt of a copy of the order.
The judgment was pronounced on October 7, 2026, in MA No. 134/2014.
The dispute relates to 13 kanals of land owned by Kumari Shanta Bharti at Village Sitni (Sitlee), Jammu, which was acquired in 1973 for the construction of the bypass road to Tawi Bridge. The acquisition was covered by Award No. LA-1878-80, dated December 19, 1973, involving a total of 196 kanals and 14 marlas of land in the village.
According to the judgment, Shanta Bharti opted for alternative land of equivalent value instead of cash compensation. However, the award providing the alternative land was issued only on October 5, 1994, nearly 21 years after the original acquisition.
Under the 1994 award, she was allotted eight kanals and three marlas in Khasra No. 62 min and 17 marlas in Khasra No. 96, both in Village Sitni, besides four kanals in Khasra No. 344 at Village Khanpur.
While possession of the two parcels at Sitni was delivered to her, the four-kanal parcel at Khanpur was not handed over, she maintained. The judgment records that Army authorities claimed the land during demarcation, stating that it had already been acquired by them.
Shanta Bharti subsequently approached the Collector, Land Acquisition, Public Works Department, Jammu, seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990. Besides alleging that the four kanals at Khanpur had not been handed over, she sought compensation for the delay in allotment of alternative land and the inconvenience caused by its division into separate parcels.
The reference was assigned to the Additional District Judge, Jammu, which framed issues concerning the delay in passing the award, the alleged financial loss, the inconvenience arising from the allotment of land at different locations and whether complete possession of the alternative land had been delivered.
An additional issue specifically addressing the delivery of possession was framed on January 15, 1998, placing the burden on the respondents to establish that the entire land promised under the award had been handed over.
During the proceedings, Shanta Bharti appeared as a witness and maintained that possession of the Khanpur parcel had never been delivered. She also stated that she had approached the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, and the concerned minister over the matter.
The Collector, Land Acquisition, PWD, Jammu, appeared before the reference court and initially stated that possession of all three parcels had been handed over. However, his cross-examination remained incomplete, and he did not return despite several opportunities. The court closed the respondents’ evidence on August 29, 2007.
Shanta Bharti died on June 13, 2010, and her brother, Kailash Nath Sharma, and sister, Raj Sharma (Bharti), were brought on record as her legal representatives in October 2012. The reference court dismissed the claim on December 2, 2013, holding that sufficient evidence had not been produced to establish the financial loss allegedly caused by the delay or the inconvenience arising from the allotment of land at different locations.
The legal heirs challenged that decision before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Kailash Nath Sharma also died, leaving Raj Sharma (Bharti) to pursue the case.
High Court finds possession of four kanals was never delivered
Justice Dhar distinguished between the claim for damages arising from the delay and the separate issue of whether the authorities had fulfilled their obligation to provide the entire alternative land promised under the award.
The court agreed with the reference court that the claim for monetary damages due to the delay was not supported by sufficient evidence. Shanta Bharti had claimed a loss of Rs 15 lakh because of the delay and sought a further Rs 2 lakh on account of the alternative land being situated at three different locations. However, she had not produced supporting evidence to establish the alleged losses or demonstrate the relevant construction costs in 1973 and 1994.
The court also observed that the land acquired from her and the alternative land allotted in exchange were both subject to changes in market value. It, therefore, declined to accept the argument that the delay, by itself, established a compensable monetary loss in the circumstances of the case.
However, the High Court found that the reference court had failed to examine or decide the additional issue concerning the delivery of possession of the four-kanal parcel at Khanpur.
The judgment states that Shanta Bharti had consistently maintained that the land was never handed over to her. Although the Collector initially claimed that possession had been delivered, his testimony remained incomplete because he did not appear for further cross-examination.
The court held that the Collector’s incomplete testimony could not be relied upon as evidence to establish that possession had been delivered. It also noted that the authorities had failed to produce the relevant record concerning the handing over of physical possession, despite a specific request made by Shanta Bharti on April 18, 2000.
The High Court said the failure to produce records held by the authorities warranted an adverse inference against them. In the absence of evidence rebutting Shanta Bharti’s assertion, the court held that possession of the four kanals at Khanpur had not been delivered.
The finding was further supported by a communication dated July 2, 2005, from the Director, Land Management, Jammu Development Authority, to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. According to the judgment, the communication identified a separate parcel measuring three kanals and nine marlas under Khasra No. 164 at Village Khanpur (Nagrota) for allotment to Shanta Bharti in place of the four kanals that had not been handed over. The JDA had expressed no objection to the Government allotting that parcel to her.
The court observed that the reference court had failed to consider this communication, the evidence relating to possession or the additional issue framed in 1998, resulting in an error in its decision.
Authorities directed to fulfil acquisition award
The High Court held that the authorities were required to ensure that the entire alternative land allotted under the 1994 award was handed over to Shanta Bharti. If the four-kanal parcel could not be delivered because it was occupied by a third party, the authorities were required to provide alternative land of equivalent value.
The court also referred to the constitutional protection of the right to property, observing that it was a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, as applicable to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, during the relevant period up to 2019. It noted that the right to property continues to be a constitutional right following the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir.
Allowing the appeal to this extent, the court set aside the Additional District Judge’s judgment and directed the respondents to identify four kanals of State or JDA land of similar value and allot it to Raj Sharma (Bharti) and the legal heirs, if any, of Kailash Nath Sharma.
The authorities have been given three months from the receipt of a copy of the order to complete the allotment and ensure that possession is handed over.
The appeal was disposed of accordingly. The judgment records that it is both a speaking and a reportable order.
