25 Years On, Jammu & Kashmir High Court Orders Compensation To Landowners Affected By Ranjit Sagar Dam Submersion

“..the petitioners’ propriety land was acquired by the erstwhile State Government of Jammu and Kashmir in connection with the construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam and the petitioners are waiting for disbursement of compensation due to them on account of such acquisition. The respondents cannot deny to pay the compensation to the petitioners, once the land has been acquired by the respondents. It is primarily their obligation to pay compensation whatever is due to the petitioners.”

The petitioners owned residential properties and immovable assets in Kathua. Their properties were acquired for the construction of the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, which led to their land being submerged. The petitioners held shares in unpartitioned Shamlat Deh land in Basohli town, and they argued that their compensation for this submerged land had not been paid.

The petitioners asserted that the compensation was due to them according to an agreement dated January 20, 1979, which outlined the terms and conditions of the construction of the Ranjit Sagar Dam. They pointed to various clauses of the agreement that stipulated the payment of compensation, acquisition of land, and rehabilitation of affected parties. The petitioners maintained that the compensation was the responsibility of the respondents and that the delay in payment was a violation of their constitutional rights.

The respondents did not dispute the entitlement of the petitioners to compensation. However, they claimed that the delay in payment was due to the non-availability of funds from the State of Punjab and Thein Dam Project Authority, both of which were supposed to provide the compensation. The respondents further contended that they had consistently requested funds for the payment of compensation, but the necessary funds had not been provided.

The Court thoroughly examined the agreements, legal obligations, and historical context related to the case and observed that there existed previous judgments on the subject which established that the liability to pay compensation rested with the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

"Since, the rehabilitation package was a part of compensation and agreement executed, which was required to be paid by the State Government to the lawful claimants on behalf of the State of Punjab. Since the liability to pay the amount to the petitioners was that of the Collector and the State Government and, accordingly, it was held in the aforesaid case that the petitioners therein cannot be permitted to wait till the final settlement was arrived at between the Punjab Government and the State Government by observing that any liability raised by the said Government for making payment on account of compensation will ultimately have to be reimbursed by the Government of Punjab", the bench maintained.

Thus, it was held that the liability to pay the amount to the petitioners is of the Collector and the State Government and the petitioners by no stretch of imagination can be permitted to wait till the final settlement is made between the Punjab Government and the State Government.

The court also noted that the petitioners had no privity of contract with the State of Punjab, and any delay in payment could not be attributed to an ongoing settlement between the Punjab Government and the State Government.

“Since there is no privity of contract by the petitioners with the State of Punjab and admittedly the petitioners have no role to play, therefore, the respondents are under legal obligation qua the petitioners to pay the compensation to the petitioners for their respective shares in the land in question”, Justice Nargal underscored.

Hence, the court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to compensation for their submerged land shares, along with interest and emphasized that the delay in payment was in violation of the petitioners' rights and ordered the respondents to pay the compensation along with statutory interest at a rate of 6% per annum.

The petition was accordingly allowed. 

Case Title: Vinod Kumar and Others v. State of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 222

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment