Smart Satellite Township: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Orders Reassessment Of Land Compensation To Claimants

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed the pleas as barred by res subjudice on the issue of tenancy but directed the reassessment of compensation/improvement charges based on current rules and parameters.

“Paying of compensation/improvement charges to camas on the basis of assessment/valuation done years ago, i.e., in the year 2001, is arbitrary. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the Respondents have to reassess the amount of compensation/improvement charges to be paid to camas (petitioners herein) based on the parameters/formula to be taken into count as per rules”.

The case revolved around a dispute concerning a Satellite Township project in Jammu and Kashmir. The subject land, once designated under the Grow More Food scheme, became a focal point of contention between the petitioners, self-proclaimed tenants who had cultivated the land, and the government authorities, who labelled them as camas.

The main question before the court was whether the petitioners were tenants of the land parcel and sought a declaration that they were tenants and, alternatively, if not tenants, claimed compensation for the land's possession taken by the government.

The petitioners vehemently contended that they were tenants, emphasizing various government orders and initiatives that allegedly recognized their status as cultivators. They argued that the land, initially allocated under the Grow More Food initiative, was instrumental in providing them with a livelihood. Petitioners also underscored the historical context, emphasizing the government's schemes that facilitated land distribution to marginalized farmers and landless individuals, solidifying their claim as legitimate tenants.

Contesting the maintainability of the petition,  Sr AAG Mohsin Qadri submitted that the petitioners had previously filed two civil suits on the same subject matter, which were dismissed, with restoration applications pending. Therefore, the current writ petition is not maintainable.

The respondents also argued that the land in question had been transferred to the Srinagar Development Authority for a Satellite Township project and that the petitioners could not oppose this development.

He further asserted that the claimants were camas and had already been compensated adequately on previous assessments and valuations, dated back to 2001, to substantiate their argument.

Findings:

After examining the contentions presented by both parties, Justice Nargal noted that the claimants had previously filed two civil suits related to the disputed land and these suits, however, were dismissed in default.

Applying the principles of Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the court determined that the present writ petition was not maintainable and underscored that the essential cause of action in both the civil suits and the writ petition was identical, precluding the claimants from seeking similar reliefs in the present writ petition.

Justice Nargal pointed out that the cause of action in the suits and the writ petition is substantially identical, and the principle of res-subjudice applies.

“On careful examination of the averments made in the both suits, supra filed before trial court and the orders whereby, the suit has been dismissed in default, it is crystal clear that cause of action in substance in those civil suits and this writ petition is identical. The principle substantial cause of action in both suits and present writ petition is same i.eto decide declare petitioners as tenants, other prayers are ancillary to it..Therefore, to this extent, the writ petition is substantially barred by Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC”.

Acknowledging an alternative prayer made by the claimants regarding the reassessment of compensation and improvement charges, the court said that his issue was neither directly nor substantially raised in the suits filed before the civil court.

Therefore, the court directed the respondents to reassess the payment of improvement charges to the Camas (including the petitioners) within two months, as the previous assessment from 2001 is considered arbitrary. 

Case Title: Ab. Hamid Bhat Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 261

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment