Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Atiqa Begum And Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 30 March, 2026
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
...
WP(C) No. 601/2025
C/w
WP(C) No. 56/2025
Reserved on: - 13.03.2026
Pronounced on: - 30.03.2026
Uploaded on: - 31 .03.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: - full
Atiqa Begum and Ors.
.........Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. Aswad Attar, Advocate
Versus
UT of J&K and Ors.
......Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG
Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Owais Dar and Ms. Syed
Gousia Tabassum, Advocates for R-5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
“There are two lasting bequests parents normally want to provide to
their children with, one of these is roots and other is wings”- unknown.
1. In this case father’s final act of love depicts that he bestowed his minor
unmarried daughter with “roots” so as to stand on her feet and the elder
married daughter with “wings” to build her own kingdom. Deceased father
ensured to secure the future of the one who needed the most at the relevant
point of time, providing stability to his unmarried daughter, while trusting his
happily married daughter to thrive in life, built up her life with her husband
and family. Sisters remained happily throughout the life span of elder sister
but now children of elder sister are claiming their right in the compensation of
the land which has been acquired by National Highway Authority.
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 1 of 23
2. Since the subject matter in the writ petitions is similar on facts and law,
therefore, both are taken up together for disposal by this common Judgment
and order.
3. These petitions have been preferred by petitioners, thereby challenging
order passed by Respondent no.2, District Collector, Baramulla dated 11-03-
2025, whereby their application seeking reference under section 3H (4) of
National Highway Act, 1956 has been rejected. The petitioners had claimed
their entitlement to compensation in lieu of land which has been acquired for
widening of Baramulla-Kupwara National Highway Road under Survey
No.92-B and Survey No.233 at Estate, Delina.
Factual Matrix:
1. The father of petitioners’ mother Mst. Malla Begum (dead) and
Respondent no.5, was owner in possession of land measuring in all 40 Kanals
70 Marlas falling under Survey no. 45, 60, 62, 63, 214, 298, 300, 390 and
518, situated at Moza Delina, and upon his death, the said property had
devolved upon his legal heirs that is mother of the said petitioners and
Respondent no.5. The pedigree table of the parties is given as under:-
Abdul Ahad Ganie
(Estate Holder)
│
Mst. Farzi Begum (Widow) – Now Dead
│
┌────────────────┴────────────────┐
│
Sara Begum Malla Begum (Dead)│ │
┌───────┼────────┐ ┌──────┴──────┐
│ │ │ │ │
Shaha Sayieda Jabeena Mymoona TasleemaWP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 2 of 23
2. The petitioners are legal heirs of Mst. Malla Begum and after the
demise of the estate holder, Abdul Ahad Ganai, as per Law of Inheritance
under Muslim Personal Law his whole estate had to be devolved upon his
wife Mst. Farzi Begum and two daughters, namely Mst. Malla Begum and
Mst. Sarah Begum, (Respondent no.5).
3. It is stated that petitioners had no knowledge about the fact that
Respondent no.5, in league with Respondent Tehsildar, had illegally mutated
the entire land of the then estate holder to the exclusion of the mother of the
petitioners. They came to know about it only when the land in question was
required by the authorities for construction/strengthening/widening of two
lane project from Rafiabad- Kupwara (NH 701) estate Delina. On further
enquiry, it was found that as per revenue record, Mutation no.1066 (Bikrami)
has been attested in favour of Respondent no. 5, Showing her as an exclusive
owner of the land in question. The entry has been carried forward in
subsequent Jamabandi and revenue extracts.
4. The petitioners allege that the mutation has been fraudulently obtained
by respondent No. 5, neither their deceased mother Mst. Malla Begum nor
were they ever associated with the mutation proceedings. The petitioners
herein filed an appeal along with an application, seeking condonation of delay
under J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, therein, assailing the mutation no.1066,
dated 21-11-2011 (Bikrami) attested by the then Tehsildar, exclusively in
favour of respondent no.5. Simultaneously, petitioners also filed a suit before
the Court of learned District Judge, Baramulla, seeking therein, inter alia,
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 3 of 23
declaration from the court that the property described shall be declared asjoint undivided and un-partitioned property of the petitioners and respondent
no.5. The suit in question, instituted by the petitioners, is for the entire parcel
of land, measuring 40 Kanals 70 Marlas out of which only approximately 6
Kanals have been acquired by the authority for construction of the road. Apart
from this, an application had also been filed by the petitioners’ seeking
restraint on the release of compensation in favour of Respondent no.5, on
account of the fact that the petitioners being the legal heirs of Mst. Malla
Begum (dead) are also entitled to share in the property.
5. Petitioners filed an application before Respondent no.3, Assistant
Commissioner Revenue, Baramulla, thereby requesting him not to release
compensation in favour of Respondent no.5, till the rights between the parties
are decided. After receiving report from the concerned, Respondent no .3
dismissed the application of the petitioners on 23-12-2024, mainly on the
ground that same pertains to the filing of mutation/appeal/revision of
settlement of records.
6. The petitioners invoked the provisions of National Highway Act 1956,
read with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, by filing an application before
Deputy Collector Baramulla, Respondent no.2, seeking therein the reference
of the dispute to the competent authority for adjudication regarding
apportionment, including the question of title. The application of the
petitioner seeking reference was not decided by Respondent no.2, which
constrained the petitioners to file a writ petition before this Court bearing
WP(C) 56/2025, wherein interim order was granted in favour of the
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 4 of 23
petitioners on 03-01-2025, by directing Respondent no.2 to decide theapplication filed by the petitioners for making reference and not to disburse
the compensation. Respondent no.2 decided the reference in terms of
impugned order dated 11-03-2025, thereby holding that the recorded owner of
the land shall only be entitled to compensation.
7. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by Respondent
no.2, on the ground that the findings returned by respondent No. 2, are based
on the report of Respondent no.4, Tehsildar, which was relied upon by
Assistant Commissioner Baramulla; Respondent no.2 while passing the
impugned order, has usurped the authority as by law vested in the Principal
Civil Court of original jurisdiction; he has gone into the merits of the case and
decided the application as if he was the authority hearing the reference;
impugned order is in violation of National Highway Act, 1956, read with
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013.
8. Per contra, in the reply filed by Respondent no.5, it is stated that the
instant petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners, for the same
cause of action and relief sought, have already approached this court by filing
a writ petition WP (C) No. 56/2025, the Petitioners have filed a false affidavit
and have averred in this petition at para 24 that they have not filed any other
petition on the same subject matter; not only that, the petitioners have also
filed a civil suit for declaration, partition, and separate possession, Mesne
profit, and Perpetual Injunction qua the land which has been acquired, before
the Principal District Judge, Baramulla; petitioners have also filed an appeal
challenging Mutation No.1066 in terms whereof the property acquired stands
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 5 of 23
mutated in the name of Respondent no.5. The appeal was preferred after
acquisition proceedings were initiated, which upon consideration has been
dismissed on 20-05-2025.
9. Respondent no.5 is stated to be the owner in possession of the land
measuring 39 Kanals, 19 Marla situated at Moza Delina. Out of this property
land measuring 0.136 Hectares under Survey no.233 and land measuring
0.163 Hectares under Survey no. 92-B amongst others was sought to be
acquired. The acquisition proceedings were initiated under the provisions of
National Highway Act, 1956, a Notification was published in two leading
newspapers and 21 days’ time was granted to the land owners/Interested
persons to file their objections. No objections were filed by the petitioners,
after the acquisition proceedings were initiated in accordance with law and
Award under Section 3G of National Highway Act, 1956 was notified by
respondent no.8 on 31-07-2024. The respondent no.5 was held entitled to
compensation amounting to ₹2,48,82,947/- for land measuring 0.136 Hectares
falling under survey no. 233 and ₹ 2, 98,22,944/-for the land measuring 0.163
Hectare falling under Survey no. 92-B. After passing of the Award dated 31-
07-2024, an application has been filed by petitioners before Responding no.3,
thereby requesting for stoppage of compensation in favour of Respondent
no.5, the same was rejected on 23-12-2024 by Respondent No. 3.
10. It is stated further in the reply that the petitioners are strangers to the
acquisition proceedings as such have no right to seek reference to the
Principal Civil Court. The competent authority has rightly on the basis of the
record held that the petitioners have no right over the properties which have
been acquired and Respondent no. 5 is the sole owner of the acquired land.
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 6 of 23
Moreover, the petitioners do not satisfy the definition of “Person Interested”,
as such they cannot raise any dispute qua apportionment of the amount
determined.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Aswad Attar has contended that
Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956 emphasizes the expression “shall refer”,
which is mandatory in character, the moment a dispute regarding
apportionment or entitlement to compensation arises, the Competent
Authority is statutorily divested of adjudicatory power and is bound to refer
the matter to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. He further
submits that the property in question was a landed estate of late Abdul Ahad
Ganie, which upon his demise, devolved upon his widow and two daughters
in accordance with Muslim Personal Law (Shariya Law). He submits that the
Petitioners, being daughters of late Mst. Malla Begum, stepped into her shoes
and inherited her lawful share. He has submitted that the Competent
Authority transgressed its statutory limits by scrutinizing the revenue entries,
touching upon title and ownership. According to the learned counsel for
petitioners, such exercise amounts to adjudication of civil rights, which falls
exclusively within the domain of a civil court.
12. Learned counsel has further contended that the pendency of a civil suit
for declaration and partition reinforces, rather than negates, the existence of a
dispute. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the very fact that a
civil court is seized of the issue of title demonstrates that a bona fide dispute
exists, mandating reference under Section 3H (4) as such the impugned order
effectively prejudges the rights of the petitioners by accepting the revenue
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 7 of 23
record as conclusive, thereby depriving them of statutory protection
envisaged under the National Highway Act of 1956. Learned counsel further
submits that it is beaten law of the land that revenue entries do not confer title
upon its beneficiary.
13. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mansoor Saheb (Dead) and
Others v. Salima (D) by Lrs. and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1023 wherein
the Court observed:
“35. Additionally, the purpose of mutation entry, as is well
settled is only limited to revenue records. They do not, in any
way, translate to or confer any title in regard to the subject
matter property.”
14. He has also relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported
in 2024 SCC Online 3809, 2004(3) SCC 137, 2023 (19) SCC 126 and 1952
(2) SCC 219.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the Respondents.
15. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai appearing on behalf
of Respondent No. 5, submitted that the petitioners have not demonstrated
any subsisting legal right of theirs over the property in question as on date.
Mutation No. 1066 has been recorded in favour of Respondent No. 5 for more
than seven decades, but was never challenged by Mst. Malla Begum (dead)
during her lifetime. He further submits that the property had devolved in
favour of Respondent No. 5 in the year 1954 as per customary law, which was
relevant at that point of time and not as per Shariat law. It is also submitted by
learned senior counsel that the settled revenue record formed the basis of
acquisition proceedings and the award, the Petitioners’ raised their claim only
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 8 of 23
after determination of compensation, a belated assertion lacking prima facie
foundation.
16. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Section 3H(4) cannot be read in
isolation, the expression “dispute” must denote a legally cognizable and bona
fide controversy grounded in a recognizable right. A mere assertion of co-
heirship, unsupported by any declaratory decree or prima facie adjudication,
does not automatically compel District Collector to accept reference. Reliance
has been laid upon 2017 (11) SCC 92, 2011(7) SCC 397, 2016 (02)SLJ 751,
2018 (2) SLJ 965, 2025 SCC ONLINE BOMBAY 1037, 2025 SCC BOMBAY
307, 2025 SCC ONLINE KER 7592.
17. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr Hakeem Amaan Ali has
submitted that Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Baramulla, while passing
an order on an application filed by petitioners regarding the release of
compensation for land falling under Survey no.92-B and 233 situated at
Delina, which has been acquired for the construction of RKCTC Road, had
directed the office of the Tehsildar, Baramulla, to submit report, accordingly,
a team was constituted headed by Naib Tehsildar Baramulla to enquire into
the matter and to submit the report. The team examined the available revenue
records and after conducting a thorough enquiry in the matter, submitted his
report on 16-12-2024, which strengthens the claim of respondent no. 5 of
being an exclusive owner in possession of the acquired land.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
19. Learned senior counsel representing respondent No. 5, has raised
preliminary objections with respect to maintainability of this petition on the
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 9 of 23
ground that petitioner had filed a writ petition WP(C)no.56/2025, for the same
cause of action and relief sought, in that petition, petitioners herein, had
sought direction upon Respondent no. 2 to refer the dispute with respect to
land in question to competent authority for adjudication. In this petition,
petitioners have challenged the decision taken by Respondent no. 2, as per
interim direction passed in the earlier petition, the second prayer is the
consequential relief which has been sought by the petitioners in both the
petitions. The petitioners though have not suppressed anything in the instant
petition; but they were bound to depose at para 24 that they had filed a similar
petition which is pending disposal before this Court.
20. The petitioners herein, have remained silent for as many as 70 years
after the mutation was recorded in the year 2011 (Bikrami), 1954 A.D, in
favour of Respondent no.5, and mother of the petitioner never objected to the
right, title, ownership of Respondent no. 5 during her lifetime. The date of
death of the mother of the petitioners is nowhere mentioned in the petition,
however, petitioners herein are also more or less above 50 years of age, and
most of them are residing nearby to the property in dispute at village Delina,
therefore it is very difficult to believe that petitioners had no knowledge of the
right, ownership and possession of Respondent no.5, with respect to subject
matter of the property in dispute.
21. In this petition, petitioners claim to be entitled to the compensation for
the land allegedly devolved upon them through their mother now acquired for
the construction of the road, which is to be released only in favour of the
respondent no. 5, on the basis of mutation no.1066 dated 21-11-2011
(Bikrami), recorded in her favour from last more than seven decades.
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 10 of 23
Reference to the dispute was made by petitioners before concerned District
Collector under section 3H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956, to the extent
of apportionment of the land in question, however, the same has been
rejected by Respondent no.2, in terms of order impugned dated 11-03-2025.
Before coming to the rival submissions on either side, few relevant
provisions of the Act of 1956 are to be looked into:-
3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation.–(1) Where
any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount
which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.
(2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on,
any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to
the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land
has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such
acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent, of the amount
determined under sub-section (1), for that land.
(3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice
published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular
language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be
acquired.
(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require
all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent
or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C,
before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the
nature of their respective interest in such land.
(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties,
the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be
determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central
Government–
(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every
arbitration under this Act.
(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the
amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be,
shall take into consideration–
(a)the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification
under section 3A;
(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of
taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from
other land;
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 11 of 23
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of
taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously
affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is
compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable
expenses, if any, incidental to such change.
3H. Deposit and payment of amount.–
(1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the
Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in
this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking
possession of the land.
(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-
section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central
Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto.
(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited
under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons
who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them.
(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.
(5) Where the amount determined under section 3G by the arbitrator is in
excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator
may award interest at nine per cent, per annum on such excess amount from
the date of taking possession under section 3D till the date of the actual
deposit thereof.
(6)Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount
determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with
interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the
Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in
this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the
provisions of subsections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit.
22. The legislative intent, as reflected in 3G of the Act of 1956, clearly
shows that the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement, on any
land which is required under. There shall be paid an amount to the owner or
any other person who has right of enjoyment in that land, affected in any
manner by such acquisition. Before proceeding to determine the amount, the
competent authority is bound to give a public notice published in two local
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 12 of 23
newspapers, such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require
all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a
legal practitioner before the competent authority, at a place and time to state
the nature of their respective interest in such land , and if it is not acceptable
to either of the parties, the amount shall on application by parties be
determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the central government.
Section 3H(4) provides that if any disputes arises as to the apportionment of
the amount or any part thereof, the competent authority shall refer the dispute
to the decision of principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits
of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.
23. The National Highways Act, 1956 has not defined ‘Person Interested ‘
in the Act, however, it broadly recognizes the owner and any other person
whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner
whatsoever.
However, The Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 213 provides the definition
of “land owner” and “person interested” under Ssection 3(r) and Section
3(x), respectively.
Under Section 3(r) “land owner” includes any person,–
(i) whose name is recorded as the owner of the land or building or part
thereof, in the records of the authority concerned; or
(ii) any person who is granted forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes
and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) or under any other law for the time being in
force; or
(iii) who is entitled to be granted Patta rights on the land under any
law of the State including assigned lands; or
(iv) any person who has been declared as such by an order of the court
or Authority;
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 13 of 23
Further, under Section 3 (x), “person interested” means–
(i) all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on
account of the acquisition of land under this Act;
(ii) the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, who
have lost any forest rights recognized under the Scheduled Tribes and
Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006 (2 of 2007);
(iii) a person interested in an easement affecting the land;
(iv) persons having tenancy rights under the relevant State laws
including share-croppers by whatever name they may be called; and
(v) any person whose primary source of livelihood is likely to be
adversely affected;
24. Petitioners, herein have already preferred a civil suit for declaration and
consequential relief with respect to the property, which also includes the
property forming the subject matter of the present petition where all the
respondents have been arrayed as defendants. This means that the
petitioners/plaintiffs are yet to obtain a declaration in their favour on the basis
of which they can be said to have a right, title or interest with respect to the
suit property including the property forming subject matter of this petition.
In the suit the petitioners herein, have prayed as under:-
a. Decree of declaration declaring the Suit land measuring 39 Kanal 19
Marlas under Survey number 17, land measuring 17 Kanal 11
Marlas contained under khasra number 36, land measuring 7 kanal 02
Marlas contained under Survey number 92 BAY, land measuring
15 Kanal 06 Marlas contained under Survey number 233, situated at
Moza Delina as joint, undivided and un-partitioned among the
plaintiffs and the defendant no. 6 and the plaintiffs may be declared
entitled to their respective share out of the suit property.
B. Decree of prohibitory and mandatory injunction be passed
against the defendants 1 to 5 (official Defendants) restraining them
from disbursing the compensation amount with regard to the land
falling under Survey number 92-BAY and 233, which has been acquired
by defendant 1 to 5 for national Highway bypass road,
Kanispora/Kapwara road in favour of defendant no.6.
c. Decree by issuance of preliminary decree of partition, by directing
Tehsildar Baramula to partition the suit land by meets and bounds in
between the plaintiffs and the defendant in accordance with the
entitlement of the plaintiffs and defendants and on his submitting the
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 14 of 23
report and after its acceptance final degree of partition and separate
possession be passed under order 20 rule 18 CPC in favour of plaintiffs
and against the defendant.
d. Decree of separate possession of the actual share of plaintiffs by meets
and bounds be passed, keeping in view the status and position of the
land from the property left by the original estate holder. (Abdul Ahad
Ganai)
e. Decree of consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the
defendant no. 6 (Mst. Sara) from alienating, creating third-party
interest, changing the nature of the portion of the suite land/property
falling on a survey number that is land measuring 17 kanal 11. Marlas
contain a Survey numbers i.e., Land measuring 17 Kanal 11 Marlas
contained under khasra number 36, Land measuring 7 kanal 02 Marlas
contained under Survey number 92-BAY, Land measuring 15 Kanal 06
Marlas contained under Survey number 233, total 39 Kanal 19 Marlas
situated at Moza Delina by any mode or manner till the suit land is
divided and partition in between the plaintiff and defendant no. 6.
f. Decree for Mesne Profits be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against
defendant no. 6 directing defendant to pay the mesne profits arising out
from the share of plaintiffs which defendant no. 6 has illegally used for
her personal use.
g. Costs of the suit be also decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against
the defendant no.6
h. Any other relief which this court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioners in terms of order passed by this
Court dated 24.02.2026 was directed to show maintainability of the instant
petition in the face of parallel civil suit filed by the petitioners. In order to
come out of the query of the court, petitioners filed an application under
Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC, for partial withdrawal of the claim made in the suit
filed by the petitioners to the extent it relates and seeks adjudication of the
land measuring 0.163 Hectare under Survey no.92-B and 0.136 Hectare under
Survey no. 233, acquired by National Highway Authority of India for
construction of Highway, however, the same has not been decided by
Principal District judge Baramulla till date. Appeal filed by petitioners before
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, against Mutation no.1066,
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 15 of 23
attested in favour of Respondent no.5 has also been dismissed against which
petitioners have preferred a revision petition in the court of Divisional
Commissioner Revenue, Srinagar, on 19-08-2025, which is pending disposal.
As such petitioners have miserably failed to establish any right, title or
interest in the property in dispute before the competent authority as well as
before this court.
26. As recorded by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisitions i.e.,
Deputy Commissioner (District collector) , Baramulla, in the impugned order
dated 11-03-2025, petitioners/applicants had filed application under Section
64 and 76 of J&K RFCTLARR Act, 2013 seeking reference of the case to the
court of District Judge Baramulla, however, the acquisition proceedings have
been initiated and completed under the provisions of National Highways Act,
1956 and corresponding section of the said Act for referral of dispute is 3H.
After hearing the applicants as well as non-applicants and thorough
verification of the matter, it has been concluded by respondent No. 3, that
Respondent no.5 is recorded as sole owner of the acquired land prior to the
land settlement (consolidation holding 1984-1985). It is also stated that
applicants/petitioners failed to produce any document wherein they could
establish their right/interest over the property prior to issuance of Award.
Neither the petitioners nor their mother (dead) had ever been recorded as
owner or tenant in the available records. In terms of the Act, Notification was
published in two leading newspapers, 21 days’ time was granted to the land
owners/person interested to file their objections. Admittedly, no objections
have ever been filed by the petitioners, resultantly award has been passed in
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 16 of 23
favour of Respondent no.5, strictly in consonance with National Highways
Act,1956.
27. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment rendered
in Vinod Kumar & others vs District Magistrate, Mau and Others, (2023) 19
SCC 126. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced herein
below:
” 25. The scheme of the Act 1956 and the statutory provisions referred
to above makes it very clear that once any land is acquired under the
Act 1956, the competent authority is obliged to pay an amount by way
of compensation. There is a procedure which has been prescribed
under Section 3G of the Act 1956. Sub-section (5) of Section 3G makes
it abundantly clear that if the amount determined by the competent
authority under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of Section 3G is not
acceptable to either of the parties, the amount will have to be
determined by the arbitrator who may be appointed by the Central
Government on the strength of an application by either of the
parties. Section 3H provides that the amount determined towards
compensation under Section 3G will have to be deposited by the
Central Government in accordance with the rules. It is only after such
amount is deposited by the competent authority that the possession of
the land can be taken. Sub-section (4) of Section 3H talks about
apportionment of the amount. The language of subclause (4) of Section
3H is plain and simple. It provides that if any disputes arises as to the
apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, the competent
authority is obliged to refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal
Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose
jurisdiction the land is situated.”
35. We are of the view that when it comes to resolving the dispute
relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards
compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original
jurisdiction which can do so. Principal Civil Court means the Court of
the District Judge.
36. 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 ciivil 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
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 17 of 23
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 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.”
28. Learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that this
judgment is not applicable to the claim of the petitioners on the ground that
appellants and respondents in the judgment supra were co-sharers and their
shares were determined, he has relied upon the paras:
7. The respondents herein objected to the aforesaid report. Both the
parties were given opportunity to file their documents. An opportunity
of hearing was also given to the parties and thereafter the competent
authority i.e. SLAO, Mau proceeded to determine the shares of the
various parties in the land in question vide order dated 11.12.2019.
This order was passed under Section 3H(3) of the Act 1956. The SLAO
relied upon the earlier judgment of the Civil Court dated 31.05.1976. It
is the case of the appellants that the SLAO has correctly determined the
shares between the parties.
9.The respondents, being dissatisfied with the order dated 11.12.2019
passed by the SLAO referred to above, challenged the same by filing a
petition before the District Magistrate, Mau invoking Section 3G(5) of
the Act 1956. It is the case of the appellants herein that the District
Magistrate, Mau without any jurisdiction and further without giving
any opportunity of hearing to the appellants proceeded to pass an order
dated 16.01.2020 granting higher shares in favour of the respondents
towards compensation.”
29. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court in
case titled Vinod Kumar and others vs. District Magistrate, MUA and others
(2023) 19 SCC 126 drew a clear and fine distinction between:
i. Determination of the amount of compensation; and
ii. Apportionment of the amount already determined.
Learned senior counsel submits that petitioners have misapplied the
ratio of Vinod Kumar, the said judgment presupposes the existence of
competing legally recognizable interests in the property. The obligation to
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 18 of 23
refer arises where there are identifiable claimants asserting apportionmentof compensation on the basis of some prima facie existing interest. In the
present case, the revenue record exclusively reflects Respondent No. 5 as
the recorded owner. The Petitioners do not presently hold any declared
share, decree, or adjudicated right in the property. Their claim is based on
alleged succession under Shariya Law, which is yet to be established by the
competent civil court. It is thus contended that in the absence of any
adjudicated or prima facie recognized interest in favour of the petitioners,
there was no “apportionment dispute” in the legal sense contemplated under
Section 3H(4). At best, what exists is a disputed claim of title, which is
already pending adjudication in a civil suit.
30. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon K. Jayaram v. Bangalore
Development Authority (2023)19 SCC 126 to submit that Article 226
jurisdiction is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary, and a writ court
cannot be converted into a forum for indirectly securing civil relief in matters
involving disputed title, the Competent Authority rightly refrained from
mechanically referring the matter and that the petitioners must first establish
their entitlement before the competent civil forum. Only upon such
establishment would the question of apportionment arise in its true legal
sense. The proper remedy lies in prosecuting the pending civil suit, the writ
petition is an attempt to indirectly secure protection over compensation
without first establishing title on the said property.
31. Taking into account, the submissions made by the learned counsels for
the parties with respect to Judgment supra, it is quite clear that the parties
therein were co-sharers and their rights were determined, only their
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 19 of 23
apportionment was disputed, however, in the instant case petitioners prima-
facie have no right, title or interest in the disputed property, as the rights are
yet to be determined by the appropriate forums.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon judgment titled
Mansoor saheb vs Saleema reported as (2003) SCC online 3809, which
provides that the purpose of mutation entry is only limited to revenue records,
they do not in any way, translate to any title with regard to the subject matter
of property.
33. In this case, the Respondent no.5 has been able to establish her right,
title, interest, and ownership on the land which has been acquired by official
respondents but petitioners herein have failed to establish anything so as to
show their entitlement to the compensation for the said land, as such, they are
strangers and cannot be categorized as “persons interested” till they establish
their rights before the competent Court of law.
34. The learned senior counsel representing Respondent no. 5 has relied
upon the judgment titled, Nagendra Chanmalappa Kesur and Others vs
Competent Authority Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) and Others
reported as 2025 SCC online Bom 1037, wherein it has been held as under:
“26. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, the issue
that arises for consideration is whether this Court can be called upon to exercise
its extraordinary jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order dated 16 April
2024 when Petitioners are unable to make out demonstrable prima facie case of
title in respect of the acquired land. There are two clear factors against the
Petitioners for not directing a reference to the Civil Court under Section 3-H(4)
of the Act. Firstly Petitioners will have to ultimately get the Consolidation
Scheme corrected with a view to claim title in respect of the acquired land and
correction of Consolidation Scheme cannot be effected in a Reference made to
the Civil Court under Section 3-H(4) of the Act. Secondly, Petitioners have
maintained silence about Sale Deed of acquired land executed in favour of
Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 for over 20 years. Thus what cannot be directly achieved
by filing a suit for setting up challenge to the Sale Deed dated 8 November 2001
is now sought to be indirectly achieved by seeking a reference to the Civil Court
under Section 3-H(4) of the Act. Petitioners claim for compensation in the
acquired land cannot be allowed unless Civil Court arrives at a conclusion thatWP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 20 of 23
the Sale Deed executed in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 is invalid and not
binding on the Petitioners. If Petitioners were to file a suit in the year 2022
challenging Sale Deed dated 8 November 2001 such challenge would have been
susceptible to the objection of limitation as the suit was required to be instituted
within a period of three years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed or
within three years of acquisition of knowledge about execution of Sale Deed. As
observed above, names of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were mutated to the
revenue records consequent to execution of Sale Deed dated 8 November 2001
which would in ordinary case would have enabled the Petitioners to acquire
knowledge about execution of the said Sale Deed.
27. On account of the above twin difficulties, which the Petitioners will have to
surmount, before seeking claim in respect of compensation for acquired land, in
my view, a routine order of reference under provisions of Section 3-H(4) of the
Act is not warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
Refusal of reference under Section 3-H(4) of the Act would not leave Petitioners
remediless. They can always file a civil suit claiming title in respect of the
acquired land and claim a share in the amount of compensation. In the light of
the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined
to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Petition must fail. It is
accordingly dismissed. Dismissal of the Petition however shall not come in the
way of Petitioners filing a Civil Suit claiming title in respect of the acquired
land. Such suit shall be decided uninfluenced by any of the observations made by
this Court in the present judgment.”
35. Learned senior counsel also submits that the above pointer would
answer the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
refusal of reference under section 3-H (4) of the Act would lead petitioners
remedy less. Learned senior counsel would also submit that the petitioners
have already filed a civil suit which includes claiming of title in respect of the
land which has been acquired and share in the amount of compensation, as
such the impugned order dated 11-03-2025, has not taken away the right of
the petitioners, which they are seeking in the civil suit as well as in the
revision petition, which are pending disposal before competent courts.
36. Learned senior counsel has further placed reliance upon a recent
judgment passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Saravanabhava
vs District collector and others., reported as 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 7592 ,
wherein it has been held as under:
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 21 of 23
” 5. The learned Single Judge examined the matter and opined that such a
challenge is hit by the provisions of the Limitation Act. We are of the view that such
an observation was unnecessary. The question that needed to be considered was
whether the dispute ought to have been referred to the civil court as provided under
Section 3H(4) of the NH Act. Given the fact that compensation was disbursed based
on the title deed produced by the party respondents and that the competent
authority had not committed any error in acknowledging the said title deed, there
was no need for referring such a dispute to the civil court under Section 3H(4) of
the NH Act. It is for the appellant to impeach the title deed by instituting a separate
civil suit, and he cannot invoke the provisions of reference under the NH Act as a
means to raise such a challenge in acquisition proceedings initiated under the NH
Act.
6. Thus, we reserve liberty to the appellant to challenge the title of the party
respondents before the civil court, independent of the acquisition proceedings
under the NH Act, subject to the law of limitation. Any observations in the
impugned judgment stand modified as to the application of the Limitation Act. The
question of limitation can be decided in such a civil suit and accordingly is left
open.”
37. Having regard to what has been observed hereinafter, it is held that
dispute, which the competent authority may refer under Section 3H(4) of
National Highways Act, must be one that the competent authority cannot
decide without adjudication, it must be a dispute from the perspective of
competent authority and not from the perspective of the person challenging it.
Merely for the reason that a third-party could challenge such a judgment, the
competent authority is not bound to refer such a dispute to the civil court. The
remedy available to such a person is to challenge the title deed in appropriate
proceedings before the civil court, independent of the provisions under
National Highways Act, 1956. Since the petitioners herein, have already filed
a civil suit seeking declaration with respect to the property in dispute and
have also challenged the mutation in favour of Respondent no. 5, before the
competent courts, therefore, if the dispute, raised by the petitioners, would
have been referred and decided by the civil court, it would have definitely
caused prejudice and would be in contrary to the rights of Respondent no. 5,
notwithstanding the decisions to be taken by the courts where the suit and the
revision, filed by the petitioners against Respondent no.5, are pending.
WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 22 of 23
38. In view of above, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) This court do not find any illegality or perversity in the
impugned order passed by Respondent no. 2, dated 11-03-2024.
Writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed
(ii) The dismissal of petitions shall not, however, come in way of the
petitioners in the civil suit and the revision petition pending
before the competent courts of law. The suit and revision petition
shall be decided by the concerned courts uninfluenced by any of
the observations made by this court in this Judgment.
(iii) Respondent no. 2, District Collector, Baramulla, is directed to
release the compensation in favour of Respondent no. 5,
forthwith, in terms of award dated 31-07-2024. The release of
such amount shall, however, be subject to an undertaking of
Respondent no. 5, that in the event the petitioners succeed in the
civil suit and revision pétition pending disposal before,
Respondent no. 2, she and after her lifetime, her legal heirs, shall
duly compensate the petitioners to the extent of their entitlement
of share in the property in dispute, to be decided by the
competent Courts of law.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
Srinagar
30.03.2026
“Mohammad Yasin Dar”
Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No.
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes/No.WP(C) No. 601/2025
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
C/W
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document WP(C) No. 56/2025 Page 23 of 23