3 Decades, 1,798 Kanals in Dispute: J-K HC Upholds Rs 1.10 Lakh Per Kanal For Land Acquired For BSF's STC

Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a long-pending appeal filed by the Union of India, upholding the enhanced compensation awarded to 277 landowners whose property in Humhama of Budgam district was acquired for the establishment of a BSF training centre over three decades ago.

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, who authored the 29-page judgment, castigated the authorities for their failure to notify the landowners of the compensation award in time, a procedural lapse that became the fulcrum of the verdict.

"The Collector and for that matter appellant herein, in the present case, have miserably failed to establish serving of notice upon interested persons/respondents as to making of award. This illegality cannot be cured by any ways or means," the court said.

The legal tussle began with the acquisition of 1,798 kanals of land in 1990 for the BSF Subsidiary Training Centre (STC). The landowners filed 114 references under Section 18 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, protesting the low compensation of Rs 70,000 per kanal awarded by the Collector. The Reference Court in 2017 enhanced the rate to Rs 1.10 lakh per kanal. The Union government challenged that ruling, setting off a protracted appeal, including a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

The court found that the government’s primary contention, landowners filed their objections beyond the statutory timeframe, was fundamentally flawed. Justice Koul invoked the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Harish Chandra Raj Singh versus Land Acquisition Officer, emphasising that "the date of the award" must mean the date on which the affected party is actually or constructively made aware of it.

"Making of award cannot consist merely in physical act of writing award or signing it or even filing it in the office of Collector. It must involve communication to the interested party either actually or constructively," the court said.

This finding rendered the Union’s limitation argument null and void. The court pointed out that not only had the Collector failed to serve notices to the landowners, but the appellant also failed to place any material on record showing when, if at all, the award was communicated.

Drawing heavily on precedents from the top court, including Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade and Premji Nathu, Justice Koul stressed that procedural fairness and effective communication are not technicalities but constitutional imperatives.

"The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force," the judge wrote.

The court noted with particular concern that the Collector's failure to issue notice deprived landowners of their legal right to contest the compensation in a timely manner, an act that "undermined natural justice."

While the Union also contended that the Reference Court's compensation was excessive, the High Court disagreed, if anything, it said, the Rs 1.10 lakh per kanal award was "conservative." The court acknowledged that though the land was acquired in 1990, the Collector relied on rates that did not reflect the property's potential, especially given its proximity to Srinagar International Airport.

Referring to exemplar transactions and comparable government awards, the court noted, "In one case, Rs 1.30 lakh per kanal had been given and, in another case, Rs 2.50 lakhs per Kanal had been awarded by Collector. And in the third case, Reference Court had enhanced compensation to Rs 3 lakhs per Kanal."

Still, the court refrained from enhancing the amount further, stating: "At this stage, it would not be appropriate to change, modify or alter the judgement by raising little above the compensation awarded by the Reference Court."

The court, while dismissing the instant appeal, ordered the Registry to transmit the amount deposited by the Union government along with applicable interest to the Reference Court for disbursement to the landowners after due verification by their counsel.

The BSF’s STC in Humhama was sanctioned in 1989, with the government acquiring nearly 1800 kanals from over 270 landholding families. Though 80 per cent of compensation was paid shortly after the acquisition, disputes over market rates and procedural lapses led to litigation that spanned more than three decades, multiple courts, and appeals that outlived 55 of the original respondents.