Jammu-Pathankot Highway Dispute: J-K High Court Slams Govt For 70-Year Construction On Unacquired Land
The case revolves around two kanals of land at Village Digiana, which had been occupied in 1957 for the widening of the Jammu-Pathankot National Highway.
Published : February 26, 2026 at 5:56 PM IST
Srinagar: More than seven decades after a piece of land in Digiana was taken for the Jammu-Pathankot highway, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has intervened, questioning how government agencies continued using private property without officially acquiring it or providing compensation.
In a 14-page judgement, Justice MA Chowdhary allowed a writ petition filed by Ch. Mohd. Sadiq, son of Munshi Khan and resident of Digiana Ashram, Jammu. The court directed authorities either to initiate land acquisition proceedings or return the land to the owners within six weeks.
The case revolves around two kanals of land in Khasra No. 299 (old) at Village Digiana, which the petitioner said had been occupied in 1957 for the widening of the Jammu-Pathankot National Highway without following any legal procedure.
According to the petition, the land originally belonged to the petitioner’s father, Munshi Khan, who owned 2 kanals and 11 marlas in the said Khasra number. The family had sold 11 marlas to Makhan Singh, while the remaining two kanals continued to belong to them.
However, revenue records later reflected that the Central Public Works Department had occupied the land for future widening of the highway.
The petitioner approached revenue authorities seeking compensation but was unable to obtain any clarity about the acquisition proceedings or payment. Eventually, he moved to the High Court, seeking directions for compensation along with interest from the date the land was taken over.
The petition named multiple government bodies as respondents, including the Union of India through the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the Director General of the Central Public Works Department, the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through its Revenue Department, the Deputy Commissioner Jammu, the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department Jammu, and officials of the National Highways Authority of India.
The petitioner was represented by senior advocate Pranav Kohli, along with advocate Farhan Mirza.
During the proceedings, the deputy commissioner of Jammu examined the revenue records and submitted a report to the court.
The report confirmed that the land measuring two kanals was still recorded in the name of the petitioner’s predecessors, while the Central Public Works Department was shown as occupying the land. Importantly, the administration told the court that no entry relating to acquisition proceedings or payment of compensation could be found in the records.
The Deputy Commissioner had even written to the CPWD asking it to produce acquisition records, if any existed, but no information was provided.
Different government departments attempted to distance themselves from responsibility.
The Central Public Works Department told the court that the road stretch between Kunjwani Bypass and Satwari Chowk had been handed over to the Public Works Department in 2010 and that it had no further involvement.
The Public Works Department said the road had existed even before 1947 and had long been maintained by CPWD before being transferred to PWD in 2010. Later, the road was handed over to the National Highways Authority of India in November 2021 for further expansion as part of a larger highway project.
The NHAI, for its part, argued that the land was depicted as state land in its records and that the petition raised disputed questions of fact that could not be examined in writ jurisdiction.
After examining the record, the court concluded that the land had indeed been used by government agencies over the years without following the legal process for acquisition.
“It has thus come to the fore that the land measuring two kanals, comprising khasra no. 299 old in Village Digiana, owned by the forefathers of the petitioner… had been used initially by CPWD, then by State PWD, and now being used by the National Highway Authority of India, without acquiring the same in terms of the law applicable for land acquisition and without payment of compensation to the rightful owners,” the court observed.
The judge also expressed concern that the land had remained in government possession for decades without any legal basis.
“It is very strange that the landowners, including the petitioner, were deprived of their landed estate without resorting to the law of the land… The landowners cannot be divested of their property without following due course of law,” Justice Chowdhary said.
The court emphasised that even though the property right is no longer a fundamental right, it continues to enjoy constitutional protection under Article 300A of the Constitution.
“The respondents are found to have been in possession of the land for more than 70 years now, which is not permissible… The right to hold property was initially a fundamental right… and even now is also a constitutional and human right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India,” the judge noted.
Allowing the petition, the High Court directed the National Highways Authority of India to submit an indent for the acquisition of the land to the competent authority. If the indent is not submitted, the agency must restore possession of the land to the owners within six weeks from the date the certified copy of the judgment is received.
The court further directed that once the indent is submitted, the collector or competent authority must proceed with the acquisition in accordance with the applicable law and complete the process within the prescribed timeline.
Also Read
