Right to Compensation Survives Land Acquisition Closure

In this ruling, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in the case of Amanullah Khan v. Union of India & Ors., (2025 SCC OnLine J&K 409), dated May 5, 2025, directed the Collector Land Acquisition to assess and award compensation to the petitioner for loss caused by the closure of his brick kiln, holding that a supplementary award is permissible even after the original land acquisition award has been made.

Amanullah Khan, the petitioner, established Khan Brick Kiln in 1998 on leased land in Village Malhori, Doda, Jammu and Kashmir, operating with valid licences and environmental clearance until 2008, which had a validity till August 2009, when a highway widening project reportedly damaged the kiln and destroyed its access, forcing its closure. Despite multiple representations and supporting reports from local revenue officials and a private technical consultant confirming partial acquisition and damage, no compensation was granted. The Border Roads Organisation (BRO) denied any acquisition of the kiln land, claiming the structure lay outside the acquired 61-foot width, that compensation had already been paid for the entire stretch in 2007 when the land acquisition process was concluded, and that Khan, as a lessee, lacked standing. They also stated that responsibility now lay with the State Public Works Department (PWD).

The Court rejected these contentions, relying on an official joint inspection report conducted in 2012 by the Naib Tehsildar in the presence of BRO representatives. This report, supported by the Tatima Shajra map, clearly established that even after reducing the road width to 65 feet at the site, a portion of the brick kiln fell within the acquired land, and the kiln had become non-functional due to construction activity. The Court held that revenue authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996, were competent to determine boundary and demarcation disputes and that their findings stood unchallenged by the BRO through any formal legal mechanism. Consequently, the report was binding on all parties.

Addressing the legal question of whether the collector could issue a supplementary award, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohanji v. State of UP [JT 1995 (8) SC 599], dated February 6, 2023, which permits post-award compensation for structures, trees, and machinery. The Court also cited its own Division Bench decision in Divisional Commissioner v. Ghulam Nabi Bhat, [2012 (4) JKJ(HC) 241], dated July 17, 2012, affirming that supplementary awards were not barred even after the two-year period under Section 11-A of the J&K Land Acquisition Act. The argument that BRO could evade liability by transferring the road to the PWD was dismissed, as BRO had executed the project and initiated the acquisition process, thereby retaining responsibility for compensatory consequences.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Collector Land Acquisition to initiate and complete assessment of damages, including compensation for structural loss and loss of business, and mandated that BRO and the Union of India must cooperate fully and deposit the compensation so assessed. The entire process was ordered to be completed within six months of receipt of the judgment.

This ruling reaffirms the principle that governmental executing agencies remain liable for compensating affected parties even after project completion and that supplementary awards are legally permissible to uphold the right to just compensation.