Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Reserved On : 17.09.2025 vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 9 April, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
2026:JKLHC-SGR:60-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA No. 79/2025 in
WP(C) No. 504/2025
Reserved on : 17.09.2025
Pronounced on : 09.04 .2026
Uploaded on : 10.04.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced
Abdul Aziz Bhat and others .... Petitioner/Petitioners(s)
Through:- Mr. Imam Abdul Muizz,
Advocate
Mr. Naseer-ul-Akba, Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Ms. Nowbahar Khan, Asst. Counsel
Ms. Mariya Ashraf, Advocate
vice
Mr. Altaf Mehraj, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent
Appeal being aggrieved of the order dated 11.03.2025 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 504/2025 titled
“Abdul Ahad Bhat v. Union Territory of J&K and others“,
whereby the writ petition filed by the private respondent was
disposed of with a direction to the official respondents,
particularly respondent No. 3-Collector Land Acquisition,
Baramulla (Additional Deputy Commissioner), to ensure
payment of compensation as per the award to the petitioner
LPA No. 79/2025 Page 2 of 7
2026:JKLHC-SGR:60-DB
therein within a period of eight weeks, failing which, the same
was to be payable at the rate of 6% per annum.
2. The case of the writ petitioner (private respondent herein)
before the learned Single Judge was that his land and
structures under Survey No. 4320/2012, situated at Tapper
Waripora, Pattan, forming part of his immovable property, had
been acquired for the purpose of widening of the Srinagar-
Baramulla National Highway (NH-44). It was pleaded that
though an award had been passed in the matter, the
compensation amount assessed in his favour had not been
disbursed despite repeated representations. On the basis of
the material produced, particularly the apportionment
statement showing the petitioner’s land and structures, the
learned Single Judge considered the matter to be capable of
disposal at the threshold stage and directed release of
compensation in favour of the private respondent.
3. The appellants, who were not arrayed as parties in the
writ petition, have assailed the aforesaid order mainly on the
ground that the land under Survey No. 2012 does not
exclusively belong to the private respondent, but is joint and
unpartitioned property inherited by the parties from their
common ancestors namely Ahmad @ Amma, Mohideen @
Mahada, and Sannaullah @ Sona, sons of Late Aziz Bhat, who
had received the said land measuring two kanals by way of
exchange with the State under File No. 182/CHP dated
LPA No. 79/2025 Page 3 of 7
2026:JKLHC-SGR:60-DB
14.07.1970. It is stated that upon the demise of the said
ancestors, the property devolved upon their respective legal
heirs, including the appellants and the private respondent, in
equal proportion, and that the property continues to remain
unpartitioned.
4. It is the further case of the appellants that a portion of
the said land came under acquisition due to highway
widening, and the private respondent, in alleged connivance
with the revenue field staff, managed to obtain a title
certificate in his favour on the basis of a purported private
family partition which, according to the appellants, never took
place. They assert that a civil suit for partition, possession,
declaration, and permanent injunction titled “Abdul Aziz Bhat
& others v. Abdul Ahad Bhat and others” is pending before the
Court of the learned Sub-Judge, Pattan, and that an
application under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act,
1956, seeking reference to the learned Principal District
Judge, Baramulla, for deciding apportionment of
compensation with respect to property in question falling
under Survey No. 2012, is also pending adjudication.
5. The grievance of the appellants, therefore, is that the
impugned order dated 11.07.2025 has been passed without
giving them an opportunity of being heard, even though they
are co-owners of the property. According to them, the direction
for payment of the entire compensation to the private
LPA No. 79/2025 Page 4 of 7
2026:JKLHC-SGR:60-DB
respondent has affected their lawful share in the acquired
land. They submit that by doing so, the learned Single Judge
has virtually allowed the private respondent as the exclusive
owner of the property, even though the questions of
ownership, partition, and apportionment of compensation are
still pending before the competent civil Court and the
competent authority.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
7. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the private
respondent failed to disclose material facts before the learned
Single Judge, namely, the pendency of a civil suit between the
parties and the fact that the appellants had already moved an
application under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act,
1956, before the Collector, Land Acquisition, seeking reference
of the matter to the Court of the learned Principal District
Judge, Baramulla. While passing the impugned order, the
learned Single Judge was not apprised of the aforesaid facts,
as the appellants were not impleaded as party respondents in
the writ petition.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds substance in the
contention that the impugned order could not have been
passed directing release of the entire compensation in favour
of the private respondent alone, when serious disputes
regarding title, co-ownership, and apportionment of
LPA No. 79/2025 Page 5 of 7
2026:JKLHC-SGR:60-DB
compensation were already raised and were pending
adjudication before the competent civil court as well as before
the authority under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways
Act, 1956. It is a settled position of law that where there is a
dispute as to entitlement or apportionment of compensation,
the competent authority is under a statutory obligation to refer
such dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction
and withhold disbursement till the dispute is resolved.
9. Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956
provides as under:-
“4.If any dispute arises as to the
apportionment of the amount or any part
thereof or to any person to whom the same or
any part thereof is payable, the competent
authority shall refer the dispute to the decision
of the principal civil court of original
jurisdiction within the limits of whose
jurisdiction the land is situated.”
10. The Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar and others vs.
Districtg Magistrate, Mau and others,2023 SCC OnLine
787 in para 34has observed as under:-
“34.Our final conclusion is as under: If any
dispute arises as to the apportionment of the
amount or any part thereof or to any person to
whom the same or any part thereof is payable,
then, the competent authority shall refer the
dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil
Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of
whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The
competent authority possesses certain powers of
the Civil Court, but in the event of a dispute of
the above nature, the summary power, vesting in
the competent authority of rendering an opinion
in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 3H, will not
serve the purpose. The dispute being of the
nature triable by the Civil Court that the law
steps in to provide for that to be referred to the
decision of the Principal Civil Court of original
LPA No. 79/2025 Page 6 of 72026:JKLHC-SGR:60-DB
jurisdiction. The dispute regarding
apportionment of the amount or any part thereof
or to any person to whom the same or any part
thereof is payable, would then have to be decided
by that Court.”
11. It is equally well settled that a writ court, while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ought not to
issue directions which have the effect of conclusively
determining disputed questions of title or exclusive ownership,
particularly when such disputes are pending before a
competent civil forum. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
titled to State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh, (1993) Supp
(1) SCC 306, has observed that writ jurisdiction should not be
invoked to decide complex questions of title.
12. In the present case, the appellants, though not impleaded
as parties before the learned Single Judge, have asserted
prima facie co-ownership over the acquired land, supported by
their plea that the property is joint and unpartitioned and that
civil proceedings regarding partition and declaration are
pending. In such circumstances, the direction to release
compensation solely in favour of the private respondent has
the effect of prejudicing the rights of the appellants without
affording them an opportunity of being heard, thereby
offending the principles of natural justice.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 11.03.2025 is set aside to the extent it directs release of
compensation exclusively in favour of the private respondent.
The respondent No. 3-Collector Land Acquisition Baramulla, is
LPA No. 79/2025 Page 7 of 7
2026:JKLHC-SGR:60-DB
directed to keep the compensation amount in deposit and to
proceed strictly in accordance with Section 3H(4) of the
National Highways Act, 1956. The rights and contentions of all
parties with respect to title, partition, and apportionment of
compensation are left open to be decided by the competent
civil court.
14. The instant appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
Srinagar:
09.04 .2026
Bir*