SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), upholding directions to either initiate fresh acquisition proceedings for land occupied for the construction and maintenance of the Jammu–Pathankot National Highway or restore its possession to the landowners, after finding that no compensation had been paid for the land.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr Puspender Singh Bhati and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 80/2026) on November 5, 2026, holding that the judgment passed by the Single Judge did not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting interference.
The dispute concerns two kanals of land falling under Survey No. 299 at Village Digiana in Jammu, which had been occupied by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) for the construction and maintenance of the national highway and was subsequently handed over to the NHAI.
In its judgment, the Division Bench observed that the record established the undisputed fact that “no compensation has ever been paid to the rightful landowners”.
The court consequently upheld the directions issued by the Single Judge on February 24, 2026, in a writ petition filed by Ch. Mohd. Sadiq against the Union of India and other authorities.
The Single Judge had directed the NHAI either to submit a fresh indent for acquisition of the land to the Collector or Competent Authority, or restore its possession to the landowners within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
The Collector or Competent Authority was also directed to initiate acquisition proceedings under the applicable law and complete the process within the statutory timeline.
Challenging the judgment, the NHAI contended that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact contrary to the documentary record and should not have been allowed by the Single Judge.
Through its counsel, the authority relied upon an order dated June 26, 2006, arguing that the revenue entries did not establish the ownership of the petitioner over the disputed land.
It was submitted that the Girdawari of 1957 had left the ownership and tenancy columns blank, while two kanals of land were specifically recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Road’, forming part of the Jammu–Pathankot National Highway.
On this basis, the NHAI argued that Ch. Mohd. Sadiq had no right, title or interest in the land and that the direction to initiate acquisition proceedings at his instance was legally unsustainable.
Opposing the appeal, Senior Advocate Pranav Kohli submitted that the revenue records clearly established the ownership of the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Munshi Khan, son of Shukar Din.
He referred to the Jamabandi for Kharif 2000 Bikrami–Rabi 2001 Bikrami, which recorded three kanals of land under Survey No. 299 as jointly owned by several co-sharers, including Munshi Khan.
The counsel further submitted that following Munshi Khan’s death, Mutation of Inheritance No. 2894 had been duly sanctioned, attesting the land in favour of Ch. Mohd. Sadiq and other co-sharers.
After examining the revenue records, the Division Bench rejected the NHAI’s contention that the absence of an ownership entry in the 1957 Girdawari had extinguished the petitioner’s predecessor’s ownership rights.
The court noted that the Jamabandi preceding 1957 recorded Munshi Khan as an owner-in-possession and co-sharer of land measuring two kanals and 16 marlas classified as ‘Waryal Awal’ and four marlas classified as ‘Gair Mumkin’, aggregating to three kanals under Survey No. 299 at Village Digiana.
The Bench observed that merely because the ownership column in the subsequent Khasra Girdawari of 1957 had been left blank, it could not be construed that Munshi Khan had been divested of his ownership.
It further noted that out of the total three kanals, 11 marlas had been sold to Makhan Singh, while two kanals had been occupied by the CPWD for the construction and maintenance of the Jammu–Pathankot National Highway.
Finding no grounds to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision, the Bench held that the writ court had considered the matter in its proper perspective and issued directions in accordance with the applicable law.
“We do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment that would warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction,” the judgment stated.
Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed the NHAI’s appeal as devoid of merit, leaving intact the directions requiring acquisition of the land or restoration of its possession to the rightful owners.
The NHAI was represented by Advocate Sunny Mahajan, while the Union Territory authorities were represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, assisted by Malvika Gupta. Senior Advocate Pranav Kohli appeared for the private respondent, along with Advocate Aftab Malik. Advocates Farhan Mirza, Ronak Gupta and Bilal Choudhary were also listed in the appearance details.
The judgment was pronounced at Jammu on November 5, 2026.
