High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Quashment of PNC Proceedings
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Autar Krishan Dhar, a migrant from Kupwara, seeking quashment of Private Negotiation Committee (PNC) proceedings and initiation of fresh land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Autar Krishan Dhar, a migrant from Kupwara residing at Jagti Township, Jammu, had sought quashing of PNC proceedings dated February 5, 2019, whereby compensation for his land measuring 1 kanal and 4 marlas at village Villagam Doolipoora, Handwara, was fixed at Rs 4.78 lakh.
Key Points of the Case
- The petitioner claimed that the Jal Shakti Department occupied a portion of his land in 2003 for construction of a water reservoir without formal acquisition proceedings or notice.
- The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in 2005 seeking rent, compensation, and employment, which was disposed of in 2008 with directions to the authorities to consider his case in accordance with law.
- The petitioner filed contempt proceedings in 2009 alleging non-compliance of the order, which were closed in 2018 after an amount of Rs 3 lakh was deposited before the Collector concerned.
- The High Court observed that the petitioner never challenged the closure of contempt proceedings or sought revival of the case, indicating that he was satisfied with compliance of the earlier directions.
- The PNC meeting was held in February 2019, and the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 4.78 lakh, which the petitioner refused to accept.
High Court's Decision
The High Court, while dismissing the petition, held that the petitioner was trying to circumvent the statutory scheme of the repealed J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 by invoking writ jurisdiction after having failed to avail the statutory remedy of seeking reference against the compensation amount fixed by the authorities.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed: “A PNC meeting was subsequently held in February 2019 and the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 4.78 lakh, which the petitioner refused to accept”. The High Court also noted that the petitioner had been actively pursuing and contesting the matter before authorities since 2005 and therefore could not plead ignorance about the acquisition proceedings or issuance of notice under Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990.
Rejection of Key Contentions
The High Court rejected the petitioner’s contention seeking retrospective application of the 2013 Act, observing that acquisition proceedings had already commenced in January 2019 under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990, prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Act in the Union Territory after reorganisation.
High Court’s Conclusion: The High Court held that the petition was not a bona fide pursuit of justice but a calculated and clever attempt to secure higher compensation under the 2013 Act, and termed the conduct of the petitioner as gross abuse of process of law.
The High Court dismissed the petition along with connected applications, upholding the PNC proceedings and the compensation amount fixed at Rs 4.78 lakh.