LI Network
Published on: 21 August 2023 at 11:55 IST
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has recently issued a directive to the Union Territory to provide compensation to landowners whose properties were submerged over 25 years ago due to the construction of the Ranjit Sagar Dam, also known as Thein Dam Project.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal emphasized that the affected landowners should not have to wait for intergovernmental settlements for the disbursement of their rightful compensation.
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 referred to an agreement dated January 20, 1979, outlining the terms and conditions of the construction of the dam. This agreement detailed the payment of compensation, land acquisition, and rehabilitation of affected parties.
The petitioners maintained that the responsibility to pay compensation rested with the respondents and that the delay in payment violated their constitutional rights.
The respondents did not dispute the entitlement of the petitioners to compensation. However, they cited the non-availability of funds from the State of Punjab and Thein Dam Project Authority as the reason for the delay in payment.
The respondents claimed that they had consistently requested funds for compensation, but the necessary funds had not been provided.
Upon examination of agreements, legal obligations, and historical context, the Court found that previous judgments established the liability to pay compensation rested with the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Court held that the liability to pay compensation was that of the Collector and the State Government, and the petitioners should not be made to wait for intergovernmental settlements.
The Court further noted that the petitioners had no privity of contract with the State of Punjab, and any delay in payment could not be attributed to ongoing settlements between governments.
As such, the Court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to compensation for their submerged land shares, along with interest, and ordered the respondents to pay the compensation along with statutory interest at a rate of 6% per annum.
