No Bar On Supplementary Award For Compensation For Trees, Buildings Omitted In Original Land Acquisition Award: J&K High Court

Underlining the rights of those affected by land acquisition beyond just landowners, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled in favour of Amanullah Khan, a brick kiln operator whose unit was rendered inoperative following the widening of the Batote-Doda National Highway (NH-1B).

Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed the writ petition filed by Khan and directed the Collector, Land Acquisition, to assess the loss suffered due to the damage and forced closure of the brick kiln and to initiate proceedings for compensation accordingly.

Khan had taken land on lease in 1998 for establishing a brick kiln, after obtaining due licence and pollution clearance. The kiln operated for around eight years until 2008, when the National Highway widening project commenced. According to the petitioner, the construction destroyed significant portions of the kiln, including its approach road, making it non-functional, although the operating licence was valid till 2009.

Despite repeated communications and formal applications starting from 2008 to various authorities, including the Collector Land Acquisition (CLA), no compensation was paid for the damages. Even though the revenue authorities conducted multiple inspections and found that part of the kiln's land and structures had indeed come under the widened highway, the concerned Border Roads Organization (BRO) authorities, namely respondents 1 to 3 in the case, continued to deny any damage or liability.

Respondents 1 to 3 contended that the brick kiln was outside the 61-feet road width acquired for the project and that no damage was caused. They also challenged the petitioner's locus standi, stating that he was not the owner but merely a lessee. The BRO further argued that the road was now handed over to the State PWD and they bore no ongoing responsibility.

Court's Observations:

The High Court found the stance of the BRO untenable. Justice Dhar noted that once a joint inspection is conducted by the competent revenue authorities and not legally challenged by the respondents, its findings are binding. The BRO's rejection of the joint report without following due process or seeking redressal from competent appellate authorities could not invalidate the findings, the court stated.

Rejecting the BRO's contention that the Collector had become functus officio (i.e., had no power to act further after issuing the original award), the Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohanji and another v. State of UP and a Division Bench decision in Divisional Commissioner v. Ghulam Nabi Bhat & others, which held that additional compensation can be awarded through a supplementary award, particularly for items like trees, structures, and machinery omitted in the main award.

“.. once an award has been made, it cannot be stated that no award could be made thereafter in respect of buildings, trees and machinery, etc. It has been further held that the land owners or interested persons would be entitled to claim compensation for these items by seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act”, the court reiterated.

Importantly, the Court held that BRO cannot escape its responsibility by shifting the road to the PWD, as the acquisition and damage occurred during its tenure and under its project.

“… The process of acquisition in respect of the land utilized for the road up-gradation was initiated by respondents No. 1 to 3, therefore, any further proceeding, including those relating to payment of compensation to the rightful claimants, are the responsibility of respondents No. 1 to3 and not that of the PWD. Thus, respondents No. 1 to 3 cannot absolve themselves of their liability to pay compensation to the petitioner merely by handing over the road to PWD authorities”, the court reasoned.

Directing Collector Land Acquisition to initiate proceedings for assessment of the loss caused to the petitioner on account of damage to his brick kiln, the court ordered that 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.

Case Title: Amanullah Khan Vs Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 193

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment