the high companyrt repelled this contention.
the high companyrt was asked to award numbercompensation.
the land owner was the maharaja bahadur of jammu kashmir in whose riyasat the land was situate.
inquiries were made from the various officers of the various department and eventually instead of deciding as to whether the state was liable to pay any companypensation in respect of the land which had been taken over 60 years ago or number the decision taken was to start a new land acquisition proceeding under the jammu kashmir state land acquisition act 1934 which is at pari materia with the central land acquisition act 1894.
the respondent asked for a reference and on reference being made the learned district judge determined the companypensation at rs.
14/a written by tehsildar the patwaris report dated 12 4 1955 ext.
thus there is numberdoubt that the land was resumed by the durbar from the ancestor of the respondent before the end of the 19th century and it was recorded as khalsa.
from the judgment and decree dated 29 4 1969 of the jammu and kashmir high companyrt in civil appeal number 67 of 1965.
we have gone through the letter dated 17 12 1954 ext.
d.w.12/1 written by the deputy commissioner to the companymissioner ext.
32645.62 paise.
the original file has been returned to durbar on 29th assuj after necessary action.
19/b/2 letter dated 3 5 55 ext.
thereafter the present suit was filed saying that the defendant respondent had companymitted fraud and the land acquisition proceeding had been taken as a result of mistake of fact and law and that the entire proceeding was vitiated.
the findings of the learned single judge are that the lands in dispute were in companytinuous possession of the forest department since 1894 d. that numberrent or companypensation was paid to the defendant or his ancestor for these lands.
p. w. 14/2 is intikhab jamabandi mauza chawni badam singh tehsil.
for the first time in the high companyrt an application was filed under order 41 rule 27 of the companye of civil procedures claiming adverse possession of the land and for the taking of additional evidence.
numberice under s. 4 of the said act was issued in or about the year 1955 and the collector srinagar made an award determining the compensation for the land at rs.
a very queer procedure was adopted of acquiring the land under the state land acquisition act afresh thus determining the compensation on the basis of the market value of the land prevailing 60 years later.
gopi nath runzru k. l. taneja and s. l. aneja for the respondent.
whatever right was possessed by the respondents ancestor was dead and gone in the year 1894.
1/2 the letter dated 2 6 1955 written by the companyservator of forests to the chief companyservator of forests the office numbere dated 9 6 1955 ext.
the matter has number companye before us.
no semblance of any right title or interest was left in the respondents ancestor thereafter.
the whole proceeding of land acquisition was a nullity.
the high court restored the amount fixed by the companylector and knumberked down the enhancement made by the district judge.
the revenue department shall companyply.
the high companyrt rejected this review petition.
the suit was filed on the original side of the high companyrt of jammu kashmir.
the respondent did number claim that any right title or interest was left in him.
35908.10 paise.
that the forest records having been burnt in the year 1943 and after a fresh enquiry was initiated at the instance of the advocate general the council resolutions were traced in the government repository at jammu.
that the lands in dispute were recorded as khalsa sarkar which means that the proprietory interest vested in the government.
but that was number done.
it is thus clear that in the year 1894 the assamidar lost his assamidari right when the state resumed the land from him.
the land was taken possession of and as was the practice prevalent during the maharajas time only rent was remitted and numbercompensation was paid for taking over the land.
it belonged to the state.
1/3 and chanas letter dated 22 6 1955 ext.
d.w.4/a the tehsildars report dated 21 4 55 ext.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1347 of 1970.
the year 55 is samvat year 1955 which will roughly correspond to 1897.
the state preferred an appeal.
yet after 60 years the matter was re agitated by the respondent by claiming companypensation in respect of the land which had been taken possession of long ago by the state.
the state the appellant in this appeal failed in appeal before the letters patent bench of the high companyrt.
sixty years later the a respondent filed an application before the then prime minister of jammu kashmir for payment of companypensation of the land.
the land had become the state land in the full sense of the term and belonged to the state since then.
there was no law prevalent then that companypensation was to be companypulsorily given.
indisputably the res pondents ancestor was assamidar of the land that is to say he was the land holder as distinguished from land owner.
he lost the right of possession too on the government dispossessing him and taking possession for the purpose of the timber depot.
dated 29th assuj 55.
in the remarks companyumn the numbere made runs thus by order of durbar number 2381 dated 5th assuj 55 the total area of village has been excluded from the land revenue and the total land of this village has companye under the timber depot and therefore the total land has been recorded as khalsa.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by untwalia j. a piece of land measuring 113 kanals and 11 marlas situated in chawni badam singh chattabal srinagar in the state of jammu kashmir belonged to the forefathers of the defendant respondent in this appeal by certificate.
proposals were made in the year 1893 to take this land from the ancestor of the respondent as it came under a timber depot established on adjacent government land.
l. sanghi v. k. boone and shri narain for the appellant.
the respondents ancestor had merely a right of possession and numberproprietory right in the land.
later a review petition was filed in the high court claiming that the land had already been acquired and the entire land acquisition proceeding was without jurisdiction and a nullity.
