No Proprietary Land Taken, No Compensation Due: J&K HC Dismisses Kulgam Landowners' MGNREGA Road Claim
The High Court of J&K and Ladakh dismissed a writ petition seeking Rs 50 lakh compensation after a court-directed demarcation found the ADP road used only Kahcharai and State land, not the petitioners' proprietary land.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a writ petition filed by three landowners from Village Khrewan Lassipora, Tehsil Qaimoh, District Kulgam, who claimed that approximately 25 Marlas of their agricultural land had been taken over without compensation for the construction of an ADP road under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, sitting singly, found that a demarcation exercise conducted by the Tehsildar, Qaimoh, pursuant to the court's own directions, conclusively showed that the road passed only through Survey Nos. 356, 356/1 and 357 — land recorded as Kahcharai or State land — and that no proprietary land belonging to the petitioners had been used. With the foundational factual premise of the claim disproved by official record, the court held that no right to compensation arose and that the protection under Article 300-A of the Constitution could not be invoked.
The Dispute Before the Court
The three petitioners — Mohd Sultan Dar, Hamidullah Dar, and Mst. Hajira — are recorded owners of a parcel of land measuring 08 Kanals and 07 Marlas under Survey No. 370 at Village Khrewan Lassipora, Tehsil Qaimoh, District Kulgam. The land is described in revenue records as Abi Awal, and the petitioners' ownership and possession are reflected in the revenue extracts placed before the court.
On 17 December 2023, the respondents issued a notification for the construction of an ADP Road from Cheki Palpora to Khrewan under the MGNREGA scheme. The petitioners contended that upon learning of the proposed construction, they approached the concerned Station House Officer seeking stoppage of the work, asserting that the road was being laid over their proprietary land without any notification to the landowners and without payment of compensation.
They also approached the Tehsildar, Qaimoh, requesting that construction be halted until compensation was paid. The Tehsildar, vide endorsement dated 25 December 2023, directed the concerned field agencies to examine the matter. Separately, pursuant to an application dated 18 December 2023, the petitioners sought demarcation of their land, but neither demarcation nor any compensation followed.
The petitioners filed WP(C) No. 21/2024 before the High Court seeking four writs of mandamus: directing demarcation of their land, payment of Rs 50 lakh as compensation, payment at market rate under the MGNREGA scheme, and an explanation from the respondents as to how land was used without following prescribed acquisition procedure.
The Legal Contentions
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. H. Furrahi, argued that the respondents had appropriated approximately 25 Marlas of the petitioners' proprietary land for a public road without demarcation, acquisition, or adherence to the procedure prescribed under law. He submitted that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 mandates that no land can be used for public projects without following the prescribed acquisition procedure and paying fair compensation. Neither the Gram Sabha nor any local authority, he argued, is empowered to use private land for developmental works in disregard of those statutory safeguards.
The petitioners also invoked Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, contending that the use of their land without authority of law amounted to deprivation of property in violation of the constitutional right guaranteed thereunder. Counsel further alleged that the road had not been constructed for any genuine public purpose but primarily for the benefit of certain private individuals acting in concert with the official respondents.
The respondents, represented by learned Government Advocate Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, contested the petition on multiple grounds. They submitted that the petition was wholly misconceived, suffered from suppression of material facts, and raised disputed questions of fact unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings. Crucially, they relied on a spot inspection and re-demarcation report bearing Communication No. TQ/OQ/448 dated 5 July 2024, submitted by the Tehsildar, Qaimoh, which recorded that the ADP road passed exclusively through Survey Nos. 356, 356/1 and 357 — none of which formed part of the petitioners' Survey No. 370.
Court-Directed Demarcation and Its Findings
Recognising that the entire dispute turned on whether the petitioners' land had actually been used, the court, vide order dated 3 December 2024, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam, to get the petitioners' land demarcated and to submit a detailed status report indicating whether any portion of their land had been utilised for the road's construction.
In compliance, the Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam, filed a detailed status report supported by an affidavit. The report was based on Demarcation Report No. TQ/OQ/2025/302 dated 4 June 2025, submitted by the Tehsildar, Qaimoh. The court quoted the relevant findings of the status report directly:
“No proprietary land of the petitioners has been utilized in the construction of the said road within the limits of Tehsil Qaimoh.”
The report further recorded that the ADP Road from Chekipora to Khrewan traverses exclusively through Survey Nos. 356, 356/1 and 357 of Estate Khrewan Lassipora, and that the land under Survey Nos. 356 and 356/1 is recorded as Kahcharai land while Survey No. 357 is recorded as State land.
The court observed that the petitioners had not placed any cogent material on record to discredit the findings of the demarcation report prepared by the competent revenue authority pursuant to judicial directions. The demarcation report had not been called into question by the petitioners at any stage.
The Court's Reasoning on Kahcharai Land and Article 300-A
Justice Nargal examined the legal character of Kahcharai land and its implications for the petitioners' claim. The court referred to its earlier decision in Villagers of Anzwalla v. State, 2012 (3) JKJ 213 [HC] (OWP No. 399/2010, decided on 12 June 2012), which held that Kahcharai land is the property of the Government and that no individual has any proprietary right or interest in it. That judgment further held that the Government is competent to acquire Kahcharai land for public purposes, particularly where no alternative land is available, and that any compensation arising from such acquisition is payable to the concerned Panchayat.
The court also referred to Habibullah Sheikh v. State of J&K, 2009 (1) SLJ 150 : 2008 (3) JKJ 170 [HC], which reiterated that Kahcharai land is amenable to acquisition for a public purpose, that individual petitioners have no right or interest over such land, and that compensation, if any, is payable to the Panchayat within whose jurisdiction the land falls for the welfare of the local community. The court quoted the relevant passage: “If Kahcharai land is acquired, the petitioners have no right to challenge the same.”
Drawing on these precedents, the court held that the right to claim compensation is intrinsically linked to the existence of legally recognised proprietary rights in the land sought to be acquired. Kahcharai land, being State-owned land reserved for common and community use, confers no individual proprietary interest. Consequently, even if the road had passed through Kahcharai land, the petitioners could not have maintained a claim for compensation in respect of it.
On the Article 300-A argument, the court held that deprivation of property is a condition precedent for invoking the constitutional protection available under that provision. Since no deprivation of the petitioners' property had been established from the material on record, the constitutional plea could not be accepted.
Why the Reasoning Matters
The judgment illustrates the evidentiary threshold that must be crossed before a compensation claim in respect of land allegedly used for a public project can succeed in writ proceedings. The court's approach — directing a demarcation exercise before adjudicating the merits — allowed the factual foundation of the claim to be tested through an official process rather than resolved on competing affidavits alone.
The court's observation that a claim for compensation can arise only when it is established that proprietary land has actually been acquired, occupied, or utilised by the State sets out the logical sequence: proof of encroachment precedes entitlement to compensation. Where the competent revenue authority has categorically reported that no proprietary land was used, the court held that the very foundation of the compensation claim ceases to exist.
The restatement of the legal position on Kahcharai land — that it is State property in which no individual holds a proprietary interest, and that compensation for its acquisition flows to the Panchayat, not to individual claimants — is also significant for disputes arising from MGNREGA and other rural development projects in the region, where roads and infrastructure are frequently laid over revenue land of varying classifications.
Outcome
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed WP(C) No. 21/2024 along with all connected applications — CM No. 40/2024, CM No. 6562/2024, and CM No. 7294/2024 — finding the petition bereft of merit. The court held that since no infringement of any proprietary right of the petitioners had been established, the question of payment of compensation did not arise, and the reliefs sought were unsustainable in law. The judgment was pronounced on 4 June 2026 at Srinagar and is marked as a speaking and reportable judgment.