HC Upholds Recovery of Rs 2.61 Crore Excess Compensation in Anantnag Land Acquisition Case | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has upheld the recovery of more than Rs 2.61 crore from a landowner in Anantnag, observing that no individual can retain public money beyond lawful entitlement and that courts are duty-bound to prevent “unjust enrichment” at the expense of the public exchequer.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed a petition challenging the orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag, directing recovery of Rs 2,61,34,972 along with six per cent interest.

The case relates to the acquisition of 6 kanals and 2 marlas of land, along with structures, for the four-laning of the Srinagar–Jammu National Highway at Sangam, Bijbehara. The Reference Court had earlier awarded compensation for the land, structures, passenger-oriented wayside amenities, reinstallation of a petrol outlet and loss of earnings.

The petitioner argued before the High Court that the award delivered on July 15, 2014 had attained finality after challenges before the High Court and the Supreme Court were dismissed, and therefore could not be reopened. It was also contended that Rs 1.02 crore paid towards demolition of structures was separate from the compensation amount and could not be adjusted.

However, the High Court rejected the plea, holding that the lower court had merely corrected an inadvertent duplication in disbursement and had neither altered nor reopened the award itself.

The Court observed that powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code survive even after the conclusion of proceedings if exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. It further held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked merely because another interpretation is possible.

Justice Nargal observed that the trial court’s exercise was intended to ensure “that the award is executed in its true letter and spirit and that no party is permitted to derive an undue benefit at the cost of the public exchequer.”

The Court further ruled that compensation under land acquisition laws includes not only the value of the land but also structures and related assets attached to it. It said all payments made in connection with the acquired property form part of the compensation stream and are liable to adjustment.

Referring to Section 17-B of the JK Land Acquisition Act, the Court held that the law itself contemplates recovery of excess payments and embodies the doctrine of restitution. It added that any amount paid beyond lawful entitlement cannot become a permanent benefit for the claimant.

The judgment also relied on several Supreme Court rulings, including South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, reiterating that no party can unjustly enrich itself at another’s expense.

“Permitting the petitioner to retain the excess amount would result in clear unjust enrichment at the cost of public funds, which is impermissible in law,” the Court observed.

The High Court also upheld the direction for payment of six per cent annual interest, noting that restitution includes not only the return of the principal amount but also compensation for the benefit enjoyed during the intervening period.

The Court further criticised the petitioner for repeatedly litigating the matter to avoid refunding public money, observing that filing review proceedings and subsequently invoking Article 227 jurisdiction appeared to be tactics intended to delay repayment on “false and flimsy grounds”.

While dismissing the petition, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit the amount within one month, failing which it shall be recovered as arrears under the Land Revenue Act. (KNC)