Union of India v. Kuldeep Kour and Others
RFA No. 24 of 2024
VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.
Introduction
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court considered an appeal made by the Union of India against an arbitral award made under the J&K Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 ("RAIP Act"). The matter was regarding the fixation of compensation for land requisitioned by the Army in Village Deeli, Jammu, covering approximately 557 kanals and 17 marlas. The land had initially been requisitioned in 1970, and permanent acquisition was worked out in 1990 following the granting of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the State Government.
The Deputy Commissioner, as District Collector, had provisionally assessed the land at ?60,000 per kanal in 1990. Later administrative procrastination resulted in the Defence Estates Officer, Jammu, requesting formal acquisition in 2001 at an estimated cost of ?3.26 crore. Subsequently, a series of notices and surveys under official correspondence occurred, and notices were published to landowners in Forms "I" and "J" in the years 2003 and 2005, respectively. The claimants agreed to the acquisition but sought compensation at market rates prevailing at the time, seeking ?10 lakh per kanal.
Surveys from the local revenue officials disclosed conflicting assessments. The Patwari valued the average sale price during the last three years at ?65,900 per kanal, with the current market rate at ?6 lakh, whereas the Girdawar quoted a much higher price of ?30 lakh per kanal based on the commercial value of the land as it is situated on the Kunjwani–Nagrota Bypass Road. The Naib Tehsildar supported the view that registered sale deeds did not reflect actual market rates, as parties often understated sale prices to evade stamp duty. The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), after spot verification, also acknowledged the land’s commercial potential, surrounded by developed residential colonies and commercial establishments, yet recommended a modest rate of ?3.5 lakh per kanal.
The Deputy Commissioner finally settled the compensation at ?2.75 lakh per kanal, which was then slashed to ?2.60 lakh by the Ministry of Defence. The claimants received the payment under protest and proceeded with arbitration under Section 8 of the RAIP Act. The Government named the Additional District Judge, Jammu, as Arbitrator, who, having recorded evidence and examined the place and potential of the land, awarded compensation at ?7 lakh per kanal with 12% per annum interest.
Petitioner’s contention
The Union of India appealed, alleging that the award was perverse, excessive, and against the law. It contended that the Arbitrator was wrong in taking principles from the Land Acquisition Act rather than strictly adhering to Section 8(3) of the RAIP Act, whereby the market value of the land as it existed at the time of requisition, not at the time of acquisition when the location had become commercially developed, needed to be ascertained. The appellant claimed that the Arbitrator's recourse to the developed status of the locality in 2005 was legally untenable and resulted in the unjust enrichment of the claimants.
Issue raised
Therefore, the main question before the High Court was whether the Arbitrator had correctly applied the law to calculate compensation depending on the land's commercial value once it was in its advanced stage of development, or the value should have been estimated in its state as of the first requisition in 1970. The appeal challenged both the approach and the quantum of compensation determined by the Arbitrator under the RAIP Act.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court confirmed the Arbitrator's award of compensation at ?7,00,000 per kanal for land taken over by the Army in Village Deeli, Jammu, under the J&K Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968. The Court held that the Arbitrator was justified in raising the rate to ?7 lakh from ?2.6 lakh per kanal, noting that the land was commercial and not agricultural land and that it fell in an area very much developed around Channi Himmat, Trikuta Nagar, Greater Kailash, and Sainik Colony with many commercial buildings in the vicinity.
Conclusion
Rejecting the Union of India's argument that the compensation was excessive, the Court held that the valuation was reasonable and fair, considering the location of the land and its commercial viability. Nevertheless, the Court altered the interest component, lowering it from 12% per annum to 6% per annum.
Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by confirming the rate of compensation determined by the Arbitrator while partially granting the appeal to the extent of lowering the rate of interest.
Case Reference: Union of India Versus Kuldeep Kour and Others RFA No. 24/2024 Decided on October 16, 2025, [Reserved on: 04.09.2025]
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, lawyers are not permitted to advertise themselves. The information about the Firm, its Key Practice Areas or its Key Team Members provided under this website is only for informational purposes and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement of any nature whatsoever.
The information provided on this website is for general information only. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.
Communications via this website also do not create an attorney-client relationship. Visitor should always seek appropriate professional advice before acting on the basis of any information contained herein.
