ALI MOHAMMAD BELGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF J & K

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 874 · Decided: 21-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
-
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 874 
ALI MOHAMMAD BElGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF J & K 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4295-4297 of2017) 
MARCH21,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. 8AN_lJMATHI, JJ.J 
Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1934 
Compensation - Lands in question granted less compensation as 
compared to identical and similar lands situated in adjacent villages· 
acquired for the same purpose - Impropriety of - Appellants' land 
acquired for Rs.2,50, 000/- per kanal while that of other land owners 
situated i11 adjace11t villages acquired for same purpose granted 
Rs.4,00,0001- per ka11a/ - Held: When the lands i11 question are 
situated nearby and are identical and similar and the acquisitio11 is 
at the same time and for the same purpose, it would not be proper to 
discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons 
- Appellants are at par with other land owiiers whose lands are · 
acquired - He11ce, they are also entitled to enhanced compe11sation 
of Rs.4,00,0001- per Kanai with 15% solatium (Jabirana) and all 
other statutory benefits. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Appellants' lands in question are situated in 
village Chandapora which is adjacent to villages Bhagichandpora 
and Pazwalpora. In cases of acquisition oflands in Bhagichandpora 
and Pazwalpora which are adjacent to the lands of the appellants 
and were also acquired for the same purpose of resettlement of 
Dal dwellers, the Reference Court, after referring to the evidence 
adduced by the claimants thereon and the assessment of marker 
rate by Tehsildar at Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai, held that the land 
owners are entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the 
rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai with solatium at 15%. [Para 11 J 
[879-EJ 
1.2 Since village Chandapora is situated adjacent to villages 
Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, there was no reason why the 
874 
AU MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF J & K 
Reference Conrt differentiated the acquired la~d of the appellants-
land owners situated in Chandapora by awarding lesser 
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. The appellants had also produced 
a sale deed by which a small strip of land was sold in the vicinity 
of the acquired land for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the 
Reference Court discarded the evidence of witness on the ground 
that under the sale deed only a small area of land was sold and 
the sale deed cannot be taken to be a representative character 
of the entire land. The Reference Court was not right in discarding 
. the said sale deed which was supported by oral evidence of the 
witnesses, .to substantiate their claim that the market rate 
assessed by the Tehsildar at Rs.2,50,000/- was not a fair 
compensation. [Para 12) [879-G-H; 880-A-C) 
1.3 When the lands are more or less situated nearby and 
when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the 
acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to 
discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong 
reasons. [Para 13) [880-C-D) 
\.....~ 
Union of India v. Bal Ram and Another (2010) 5 SCC 
747; Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and Others. 
(2005) 12 SCC 564 : [2005) 4 Suppl. SCR 669 - relied 
on. 
1.4 Therefore, when the lands situated in three different 
villages are identical/similar and are acquired at the same time 
and for the same purpose, it would be unfair to discriminate 
between other land owners and the appellants and pay less that 
is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanai to the appellants and pay more to other 
land owners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai. The appellants are 
held to be at par ·with other land owners whose lands were 
acquired. Hence, they are also entitled to enhanced compensation 
of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai with 15% Solatium (Jabirana) and all 
other statutory benefits. [Para 15) [881-C-EJ 
Case Law Reference 
c2910) 5 sec 747 
[20051 4 Suppl. SCR 669 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 13 
Para 13 
875 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
876 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4295-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
4297 of20I 7. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2013 of the High Court 
of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar in CIA No. 2 I 1 of 2009 and Cross 
Appeal No. 64 of2011. 
J. H. Reshi, Rahul Gupta, M. Mushtaq, Advs. for the Appellants. 
G. M. Kawoosa, Shoeb Alam, Ad vs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was de] ivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals arise out of the common judgme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.