Jaswanti Gupta And Ors vs State Of J&K And Ors

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J

Acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year, 2012 for purposes of four laning/widening of the National Highway at Village Phangyal, Tehsil

and District Udhampur. The lands belonging to the private respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were covered in these acquisition proceedings. However, instead of

demanding monetory compensation, the said respondents applied for allotment of land exchange in terms of Section 32 (3) of the J&K Land

Acquisition Act, 1990 (For short “the Actâ€), which envisages that the Collector may, with the sanction of the Government, instead of awarding

money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having limited interest in such land inter-alia by the grant of other

lands in exchange. What is important, however, to notice in Section 32 (3) of the Act is that the Collector can make an allotment of land in exchange

only with the sanction of the Government.

The Collector, it appears conceding the demand of the private respondent Nos. 6 to 8, agreed to allot the land in favour of the said respondents to

the following extent:

(a) Respondent No. 6(Jeet Kumar) 05 marlas

(b) Respondent No. 7 (Suraj Parkash) 10 marlas

(c) Respondent No. 8 (Paras Ram) 08 marlas.

An award was, accordingly, passed reflecting the aforementioned lands having been allotted in exchange. The petitioners are residents of the area,

in which the allotment has been made as per the impugned award. They challenged the award to the extent firstly, that the allotment was bad

inasmuch as there was no sanction accorded by the Government in that regard and secondly, that the allotment of land in exchange is a part of the

road which is used by the residents and, therefore, could not have been allotted at all especially without the Government applying its mind and taking

objections from the residents in that regard.

The fact that there is no sanction by the Government accorded to the proposal of the Collector to allot the land in exchange and that too in regard to

land which is a part of public road is not denied. It is also not denied that the road is being used by the public including the residents and the petitioners

herein. If that be so, then the allotment and to that extent the award and the subsequent proceedings cannot be legally upheld and the possession of the

private respondents, therefore, over the said allotment can be said to be nothing but untenable in law.

While the private respondents may have a right to claim land in exchange, yet the land can be allotted only after sanction from the Government.

Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Apex Court titled Dwan Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi; 2010 Supreme (Del) 1250.

We, therefore, allow the petition and hold that the allotment made to the petitioners in exchange without there being any sanction by the

Government in that regard is legally untenable and is, therefore, set aside. It will be open to the Collector to make appropriate proposals if the

respondents are still interested for allotment of an appropriate piece of land, which in the estimation of Government may not be required and would be

otherwise fit for allotment in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners.

Disposed of along with connected IA.