“Demarcation Is Conclusive, Collector Not Functus Officio”: High Court Orders Compensation Proceedings for Brick Kiln Affected by Highway Expansion
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, has ordered the initiation of compensation assessment proceedings in relation to the forced closure of a brick kiln allegedly impacted by the widening of the Batote-Doda National Highway (NH-1B).
The Court recorded that the petitioner, who had lawfully operated the brick kiln based on requisite environmental and regulatory approvals, is entitled to an official determination of losses arising from the project carried out by government agencies. Justice Dhar observed that "the report is binding upon respondents No.1 to 3 unless it is set aside by a competent authority." He further directed the Collector Land Acquisition to "initiate proceedings for assessment of the loss caused to the petitioner on account of damage to his brick kiln, and also on account of loss of business suffered by him" within a stipulated period of six months.
The petitioner had acquired 6 kanals and 7 marlas of land under Khasra No. 82 in Malhori on lease from one Sh. Kiker Singh through a lease deed dated 29.08.1998. He established a brick kiln on the said land after obtaining the necessary license from the competent authority on 19.08.1999 and environmental clearance from the State Pollution Control Board on 01.08.2000.
He operated the brick kiln under the name "Khan Brick Kiln" until the year 2008, when the Batote-Doda Road widening project commenced. The petitioner contended that substantial portions of the brick kiln, including its approach road, were damaged or rendered inaccessible due to the road construction. As a result, he ceased operations despite holding a valid license up to August 2009.
Correspondence began with authorities as early as June 2008, when the petitioner addressed the Collector Land Acquisition, Doda, seeking compensation. Further communications and site inspections continued over the years, including a detailed joint inspection by field officials, culminating in a report dated 31.10.2012. The report confirmed that a portion of the brick kiln had come under the expanded road area.
Despite these findings, respondent authorities, including the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF), denied any liability, asserting that the kiln fell outside the officially acquired 61-feet width from the road centre. They claimed no damage occurred and challenged the competence of revenue officers who supported the petitioner.
However, respondents 4 to 6 (Revenue Officials) supported the petitioner's claim, detailing structures like office rooms, guard rooms, and water pools built on the leased land, some of which reportedly fell under the road expansion.
The Court noted the demarcation and damage reports furnished by revenue officials, which were based on inspections conducted in the presence of the petitioner and the representatives of GREF. Justice Dhar stated that "in terms of the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, it is the Revenue Authorities who are vested with the power to undertake demarcation of land whenever any dispute arises as to the boundaries."
Regarding the validity of the joint inspection report, the Court stated that "respondents No. 1 to 3 have not laid any challenge to the joint inspection report before the competent authority... it does not lie in their mouth to dispute its veracity."
On the question of the Collector’s authority post-award, the Court cited Mohanji and another vs. State of UP, JT 1995 (8) SC 599, stating that "land owners or interested persons would be entitled to claim compensation for these items by seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act." Justice Dhar further noted that the Division Bench of the same court had affirmed this principle in Divisional Commissioner vs. Ghulam Nabi Bhat, 2012 (4) JKJ(HC) 241, clarifying that a "supplementary award in respect of the trees, super-structure and machinery" could be validly issued.
Thus, the Court concluded that the Collector was competent to assess further damages even after an earlier award had been passed.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
"Respondent No.5, the Collector Land Acquisition is directed to initiate proceedings for assessment of the loss caused to the petitioner on account of damage to his brick kiln, and also on account of loss of business suffered by him due to the upgradation of the road by respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondents No. 1 to 3 shall render full assistance and cooperation to respondent No.5 in this regard, including deposition of compensation that may be assessed by respondent No.5, which shall thereafter be disbursed in favour of the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of six months from the date a copy of this judgment is made available to them."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.N. Raina, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. Hamal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI; Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Case Title: Amanullah Khan v. UOI and others
Case Number: OWP No. 937/2023
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
[Read/Download order]
