Jammu and Kashmir High Court
OWP/1021/2008 of BODH RAJ KHAJURIA Vs UOI TH. DEFENCE AND ORS. on 25 November 2011
JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU OWP No. 1021/2008 CMP No. 1490/2008 Date of decision: 25.11.2011 Bodh Raj Khajuria. Vs. Union of India & ors. Coram:- Mr. Justice J. P. Singh. Appearing counsel: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Jatinder Choudhary,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRAT JAMMU
OWP No. 1021/2008.CMP No. 1490/2008|
Date of decision: 25.11.2011
Bodh Raj Khajuria. Vs. |Union of India & ors.
Coram:-
Mr. Justice J. P. Singh.
Appearing counsel:
Union.ofInala|sanctioned|paymentof.
compensation/ex-gratiato farmers whose crops were|affected by Indian Armys movement on Indo-Pak Borderduring its Operation (PRAKARM).
Petitioner-Bodh Raj Khajurias crop was_= also.damaged in the said operation. He Is stated to navereceived first and third tnstallment ofex-gratiapayment.Second installment of.ex-gratiaamountis stated to navebeen withheld by the respondents without any justification.He, therefore, seeks directions to the respondents for )
release of second installment ofcompensation/ex-gratia along witn interest on the witnheld amount.
Petitioners claim is contested by the respondents. |
Accordingionthem,paymentOT|ex-gratia/compensation was one time payment which wasadmissible to those who had suffered damage to theircrops during Operation (PRAKARM).
Money paid by way of compensation on the secondand third occasion Is stated to nave been released only Infavour of those who were either not paid earlier or wereotnerwise aisabled to cultivate tneir land because tnerewere mines in the fields which had disabled them to use tt.
According to the respondents, the petitioner was not|entitled to any more amount because wnatever waspayable to him as compensation for the damage caused tohis crops stood paid to him in the first instance Itself. It isstated that the Board constituted for ascertaining damagecaused to the crops of the farmers who were disabled tocultivate their land, had not found the petitioner to havebeen aisabied to cultivate nis land In any mannerwhatsoever and he was, therefore, not entitled to anyfurtheramount.byWayof.ex-gratia/Compensation. —
3
Petitioners case Is. stated ais-SIMilar‘to those wno wereaisablea to cultivate land wnere mines stood embedded.
The stand taken by the respondents tnat tne petitioner|was not aisabled to cultivate nis land.Is not controvertedplacing any material on records Indicating that petitionerscase too was similar to those who were paid compensationfor the disablement caused to them because of existenceof land mines in their fields.
The claim set up by the petitioner in nis Writ Petition|that he was entitled to second installment of compensation,which according to the respondents, he was not entitied to,as there were no mines In nis jand whicn would disable nimto cultivate tne land, nas not been substantiated by thepetitioner.
Found without merit, petitioners Writ Petition Is, |therefore, dismissed, (J. P. Singh)
Judge|
Jammu: |A5.11.2011Tilak, Secy.