SC upholds HC decision on Srinagar Semi Circular Road land compensation

Srinagar, Dec 3: The Supreme Court has upheld J&K High Court’s verdict with regard to enhanced compensation to people of Dharmunah Budgam whose land has been acquired by the authorities for construction of the prestigious Semi Ring Road around Srinagar City.

While dismissing J&K government’s Special Leave petition(SLP) against the High Court’s verdict of November 16, 2022, a bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said: “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court”.

Residents of village Dharmunah of Central Kashmir’s Budgam district had petitioned the High Court against a communication of the J&K’s Financial Commissioner, Revenue, bearing no. FC-LS/LA-4577/2017 dated 13.08.2020 whereby the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir had conveyed the approval of the competent authority to the adoption of rates of compensation in respect of different villages in District Budgam for
construction of Semi Ring Road around Srinagar City.

The petitioners had sought initiation of fresh land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land situated in Darmunah, Budgam, strictly as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

In its decision, the High Court had ordered that the provisions of Section 11-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act 1990 would not be applicable to the cases where the Government had invoked Section 17 and the Collector has scrupulously complied with the requirements of Section 17-A by tendering and making payment of 80 per centum of estimated compensation before taking possession, for, the land needed for public purpose would vests in the Government free from all encumbrances only when pursuant to invocation of Section 17, 80% of the estimated compensation is paid to the land losers and possession is taken over.
They had sought initiation of fresh land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land situated in Darmunah, Budgam, strictly as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

“The possession of land losers even after payment and tendering of 80% of the estimated compensation and formal take over by the acquiring authority/indenting department shall be treated as trespassers,” the Court had said. However, Court had underscored that the applicability of Section 11-B of the 1990 Act, shall not stand excluded by mere resort to Section 17 of the 1990 Act unless the procedure provided therein and prerequisites contained in Section 17-A were scrupulously complied with.

“In the instant case, we have found that Section 11-B of the 1990 Act is attracted in view of the failure of the Collector to strictly comply with the provisions of Section 17-A,” the court had said.
While the high court bench had noted that it had found no evidence on record as to the assessment of estimated compensation and its tendering and payment to the persons interested and entitled thereto, it had said: “ Ordinarily, we could have declared the proceedings as having lapsed, however, …… we deem it appropriate to mould the relief and instead of holding the acquisition proceedings as having lapsed, we direct the respondents that the final award dated 11th August, 2020 insofar as it pertains to the petitioners is set aside.”

“The Collector Land Acquisition, Budgam shall pass fresh award qua the petitioners only and for that purpose shall construe 11th August, 2020 (date of final award) as the relevant date for determination of market value but shall apply the yardsticks for assessment of compensation provided under the 1990 Act in respect of acquired land of the petitioners only”
The High Court had further said the Collector would calculate other statutory benefits on such amounts including interest to be calculated and determined by taking into consideration the date of taking over
possession i.e. 15th May, 2018.

The Court had underscored that the date on which fresh award was passed in favour of the petitioners pursuant to its judgment and intimated to the petitioners should be the date of cause of action for seeking enhancement of compensation under the 1990 Act, if the petitioners or any of them was dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation offered.