LexSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR versus SANAULLAH MIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR v. SANAULLAH MIR April I, 1980 (A. C. GUPTA AND N. L. UNTWAL!A, H:] 281 · Jammu und Kashmir State Land Acquisition Act, 1934 Section 4-Scope of, The respondent's forefather \vas the landholder of a piece of land in the ·B State. 1be land was taken possession of in 1897 as the land came urrder a Timber dopot established on land adjacent to Government land. The practice prevalent during the Maharaja's time was that only rent was remitted and no compensation was paid for the taking over the land. The respondent's aiices· C tors had no proprietory right in the land and the right of possession was also IQ!\! oo the Government dispossessing him. Some sixty years later, the respondent filed an application before the then Prime Minilter of the State for payment of compensation of the said land. Instead of deciding as to whether the State ~'as liable to pay compens.ation in respect of the land which had been taken over sixty years ago, a new land acquWtion proceeding under the Jammu and Kashmir State Land Acquisition Act, 1934 was started in the year 1955 and an Award for Rs. 32,645.62 as compensation for the land was made by the Collector. On reference the Dis- trict Judge increas'ed the amount of compensation. On appeal by the State, the High Court restored the amount fixed by the Collector. The respondent's application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was dismissed by the High Court. A review petition that the land had already been acquired and that the land acquisition proceeding was without jurisdiction and a nullity was rejected. A suit was filed that the Jand acquisition proceedings had been taken as a result of mistake of fact and law and that the entire proceeding was vitiated. The suit was dis.missed. Appeal to a division Bench was also dismissed. Allowing the appeal, D E HELD : In 1894 the Assamidar lost his assamidari right when the State p resumed the land from him. There was no law then that compensation was · , __ Jo be given. It depended upon the sweet-will of the Riyasat to give some "../ other )ancl in lieu of the land acquired. Only the land revenue was remitted, and docnments indicate, compensation was also paid for the standing crops in the land. No right was left in the landholder in respect of which he could acquire a better right. Whatever right was possessed by the respondent's ances· tor was dead and gone in the year 1894. [285H, 286A-B] G 2. The land was resumed by the Durbar from the ancestor of the respon- dent before the end of the 19th century and it was recorded as 'Khalsa'. The Ian<! bad become the State land in the full sense of the term and belonged to the State since then. No semblance of any right, title or interest was left in the respondent's ancestor thereafter. [286D-E] 3; A que<r procedure was adopted for acquiring the land under the State R Lad Acqoisition Act afresh, thus determining the compensation on the basis of the market value of the land prevailing 60 years later. Under the in!luence ol 19-IS9~C 1 180 282 SUPREME COURT 1 REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. A some high ups, a case was made out for' payment of compensation to tlte res· pondent in respect.of the land acquired'sixty years ago by acquiring it again which led to the determination of the market value of the land in the year 1955. [286G, 287AJ 4. The State Exchequer cannot be made to suffer for illegal actions of its officers. The land had been resumed long ago and belonged to the State. The .8 whole proceeding of land acquisition was a nullity and the Award resulting therefrom was ultra vires. It mattered ~ttle whether the proceeding waa taken as a result of fraud or mistake or otherwise. The respondent had not practised any fraud nor was the land acquisition' proceeding started as a result of any mistake of fact It was either as a result of gross negligence or a deliberate act on the part of the officials at the instanCIO of some high-ups to help the respon- dent There is no question of any acquisition of the State's own land as was purported to be done in this case. [287B-DJ 0 Government Off Bombay v. Esufali Salebhai, I.L.R. XXXIV Bombay, 618; 1vlohammad Wajeeh Mirza v. Secretar:y of Statt for India in Council, A.LR. 1921 Oudh, 31, The Deputy Collector ,Calicut Division v. Aiyavu Pil/ay amf others, IX Inciian Cases, 341; The Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri & Others [1955] I S.C.R. 1311 referred to. S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.