HC refuses plea seeking enhanced land compensation near Dal Lake

Srinagar, Mar 01: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh refused to enhance compensation in favour of owners for the land near Dal Lake acquired by the government for the purpose of development of Dal Lake.
A division bench comprising justices Rajnesh Oswal and Mohan Lal dismissed a plea of land owners while observing that the present plea has been filed for the purpose of getting higher compensation which cannot be granted to the petitioners when the petitioners have never assailed the judgment of the Single Judge passed in the appeal filed by them against the judgment of the District Judge.
In November, 2005, Principal District Judge, Srinagar had enhanced the compensation for the land acquired by government in the year 2001-02 and fixed the same @ Rs.13.00 lacs per kanal.
The petitioners assailed the trial court judgment before the single judge bench of the High Court in December 2009 wherein the bench further enhanced the compensation and fixed the same @ Rs. 15.00 lacs per kanal.
The plea filed by land owners stated that after the acquisition of the land of the petitioners, the same was developed as a park, named as ‘Makai Park’ and thereafter the authorities invited tenders for the running of the said park on a commercial basis which was allotted to a highest bidder on yearly rent of Rs.6,07,000 per annum.
The counsel, Zahoor Ahmad Shah representing the petitioners argued that the respondents have not used the land for the intended purpose for which the same was originally sought to be acquired, but have put the said land to commercial usage, “as such, the acquisition proceedings are required to be quashed and the land is required to be restored back to the petitioners.”
Petitioners had prayed for quashing the whole land acquisition proceedings.
They had also sought a direction to the respondents either to restore the land of the petitioners and to pay them damages to the extent of Rs.1.00 crore or in the alternative, to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the present market value taking into consideration the commercial value and use of the land.
On the other hand, the government advocate, Ilyas Nazir Laway representing the respondents, argued that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of development of park and that the park stands already developed by the respondents and it is only for the purpose of running the said Park that the tender was floated and the contract was allotted to the highest bidder for a period of one year.
He pleaded that the courts have already determined the true value of the land at the relevant point of time and that the petitioners had gladly accepted the same (compensation) as they never, thereafter, chose to challenge the judgment and now the petitioners cannot seek the annulment of the proceedings and also payment of enhanced compensation.
It was stated in a report filed by the respondents that the parks, as per the Detailed Project Report (DPR), were proposed at Vintage points along with the Boulevard and the Northern Foreshore Road so as to provide organized picnic areas and accentuate the visual quality at these points.
It was averred that, in order to add the beauty to the lake and to attract more tourists, a few wooden shelter sheds, wooden coffee houses, waterfalls have been provided in the park for the maintenance and running of the said park and the same stands allotted to the highest bidder w.e.f. May, 01, 2011.
The respondents submitted that they have not constructed any huts or other concrete construction, “but a few wooden huts have been provided in the Park.”
The court after hearing the parties noted that the land of the petitioners was acquired for the purpose of beautification of Dal Lake and for that purpose, the Park has been developed on the land as per the DPR prepared by the concerned Authority.
The bench said that it is only for the purpose of maintenance and running of the said Park that the respondents floated the tender for allotment of contract for a certain period and thereafter, allotted the same to the highest bidder and the.petitioners too could have participated in the said tender process.
“It is not the case of the petitioners that the acquired land has been transferred to some private entity/ company for purpose other than for which the same was acquired,” the bench said while dismissing a plea.