Janak Singh and Others v. Ut of J and K Th. Commissioner Secretary Revenue Department, Jammu and Others

ORDER (ORAL)

¶1By this petition, petitioners herein are seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay them compensation to the extent of one half of the share of total land measuring more than 300 Kanals, comprising of Survey Nos. 1 to 30, 30min, 31, 51, 52, 55, 56, 59, 82, 89, 92, 97, 103, 105, 109, 115, 117, 118, 119, 124, 125, 127, 164, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 179, 183, 184 and 194, situated at Village Makhwal, District Jammu, after following the procedure as envisaged under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or in the alternate, to handover one half of the land abovementioned to them.

¶2The short controversy, involved in the present petition, is that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Sh. Naseeb Singh, along with his brother Sh. Teja Singh, was the recorded Sr. No. 141

owner in possession of land measuring more than 300 Kanals, comprising of Survey Nos. 1 to 30, 30min, 31, 51, 52, 55, 56, 59, 82, 89, 92, 97, 103, 105, 109, 115, 117, 118, 119, 124, 125, 127, 164, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 179, 183, 184 and 194, situated at Village Makhwal, District Jammu and upon his demise, on

20.11.2019, the petitioners being the legal heirs have succeeded to the said estate and their names stand duly entered in the revenue records. However, the land in question has been under occupation and use of the Defence Authorities since 1964, which fact, has also been reflected in the revenue record itself and despite the lapse of more than six decades, the respondents have neither undertaken nor completed any lawful process of acquisition.

¶3Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners have also filed a representation before Respondent No. 2 on 14.02.2024, however, nothing has been done by the concerned authority till date. He further submits that the petitioners would feel satisfied, if the instant petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation (supra), filed by the petitioners, within a reasonable period of time.

¶4Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents are not averse to the proposition made by learned counsel for the other side.

¶5In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of, at the very threshold, without issuing formal notice to the respondents, by directing the respondents, particularly Respondent No. 2/Deputy

Commissioner, Jammu to accord due consideration to the representation dated 14.02.2024, stated to have been filed by the petitioners, within a period of four weeks, from the date of passing of this order, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order thereon.

(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge

JAMMU

28.04.2026 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Whether the order is reportable :

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pronounced on : 28.04.2026 Uploaded on : 29.04.2026 Janak Singh & Ors. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Arshad Majid Malik, Advocate v/s UT of J & K & Ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Karan Sharma, CGSC Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE