HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on: 03.09.2025

Pronounced on:11.09.2025

Case No.:- WP(C) No. 1148/2025

CM No. 2715/2025

Rajinder Singh

…..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.

Vs

UOI & ors.

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Vipan Gandotra, Advocate for R-1 & 4.

Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-2,3,5 & 6

Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Vastav Sharma, Advocate for R-8

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR , JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner, through the medium of the present writ

petition, has sought a direction upon respondent No. 1,

prohibiting it from executing Lease Deed in respect of land

measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas falling under khasra Nos. 75,

145 and 93 situated at village Chand erkot in favour of

respondent No. 8; with a further direction that the official

respondents should not allow respondent No. 8 or any other

person to carry out construction of petrol pump or public

amenities on the aforesaid land. The petitioner has also 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816

2 WP(C) No. 1148/2025

sought a direction upon the official respondents to execute

Lease Deed in respect of the aforesaid land in his favour; with

a further direction that the official respondents should not

cause any obstruction or interference into the business of

hotels and shops that is being operated by the petitioner

under the name and style of M/s Kartar & Sons. An

alternative prayer has been made by the petitioner that the

aforesaid land, which has been acquired from him , be

retrieved to him.

2. As per case of the petitioner, on the basis of the acquisition

proceedings initiated by respondent No. 3-Collector Land

Acquisition (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Ramban, land

measuring 184 kanals 19 marlas situated at village

Chanderkot, tehsil & district Ramban was acquired by

respondent No. 4-National Highways Authority of India

(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘NHAI’) for four laning of the

national highway. Land measuring 12 kanals 13 marlas,

belonging to the petitioner falling under khasra Nos. 75, 145

and 93 situated at village Chanderkot, tehsil and district

Ramban was also part of the acquired land. It has been

submitted that award dated 04.07.2018 was passed by the

Collector Land Acquisition, National Highways Authority of

India (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Ramban (hereinafter

to be referred to as ‘Collector’) whereafter four laning of the 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816

3 WP(C) No. 1148/2025

national highway was undertaken by the NHAI. It has been

submitted that out of 12 kanals 13 marlas of land belonging to

the petitioner that was acquired by the Collector, land

measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas remained unutilized.

3. It has been submitted that because the aforesaid chunk of

land has remained unutilized, the petitioner has a right of pre-

emption and preferential right being owner of the adjoining

property. It has been further submitted that the official

respondents are in the process of executing a Lease Deed in

respect of the aforesaid land in favour of respondent No. 8 for

opening of petrol pump and public amenities.

4. According to the petitioner, he has represented before the

official respondents seeking retrieval of the aforesaid chunk of

land or to execute Lease Deed in his favour for construction of

wayside amenities and public amenities because he has a

preferential right over the same. It has been submitted that

the petitioner is running a shopping complex under the name

and style of M/s Kartar & Sons near the land in question and

if a petrol pump or any other public utility is created on the

land in question, it would seriously amount to interference

into the peaceful operation of his business of hotel and

shopping complex as the land in question is situated in front

of the hotel and shopping complex belonging to the petitioner. 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816

4 WP(C) No. 1148/2025

5. It has been submitted that respondent No. 4-NHAI is in the

process of executing Lease Deed in favour of respondent No. 8

for opening of a petrol pump and if the said petrol pump is

allowed to operate, the business of the petitioner would be

badly affected. It has been further submitted that as per the

report of the Tehsildar concerned, the land in question is being

used for setting up langers for Amarnath yatris and that there

are 150 bathrooms existing on the said land. It has been

further submitted that as per the report of the Tehsildar ,

Ramban, the land in question is not feasible to open a petrol

pump and other public amenities. It has been submitted that

the petitioner had approached the official respondents with the

representation for redressal of his grievance but no action has

been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.

6. Respondents No. 1 and 4 have filed a joint reply in which it

has been submitted that the land in question has been

acquired by the NHAI for the purpose of widening of national

highway in terms of final award dated 04.07.2018. It has been

further submitted that ‘public purpose’ in this case includes

road widening and its further development which includes

construction of wayside amenities/public amenities/rest area

for truck drivers/other highway commuters etc. It has been

further submitted that the petitioner has already preferred a

petition before the District Judge for enhancement of 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816

5 WP(C) No. 1148/2025

compensation, therefore, besides his claim for enhancement of

compensation, he has no right in respect of the land in

question, which has been duly acquired for public purpose. It

has also been submitted that the petitioner had started

construction of shops/structures near the land in question in

an illegal manner without permission from the NHAI , which

was objected to by the official respondents. It has been

submitted that construction of wayside amenities and other

facilities are for the benefit of general public, which are created

for public interest. Regarding allotment of the land in question

in favour of the respondent No. 8 on lease hold basis, it has

been submitted that same has been done after inviting tenders

but the petitioner, without participation in the tender process,

intends to get the said land on lease, which is impermissible in

law.

7. Respondent No. 8 has also filed its reply to the writ petition.

In its reply, it has been submitted that unutilized portion of

the land, acquired from the petitioner, has been retained for

wayside amenities and public utilities. It has been submitted

that it cannot be stated that the said chunk of land had

remained unused by NHAI , but it is a case where the said

chunk of land has been used by NHAI for creating wayside

amenities, which is included in the four laning of the national

highway. It has been submitted that after having participated 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816

6 WP(C) No. 1148/2025

in the bidding process and after having emerged as the highest

bidder, letter of award dated 29.01.2024 came to be issued by

the NHAI in favour of respondent No. 8. Thus, according to

respondent No. 8, it has been allotted the land in question

after undergoing due process and, therefore, the petitioner

does not have any claim over the said land in the absence of

his participation in the bidding process.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

record of the case.

9. The main argument that has been raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in assailing the action of the NHAI of

allotting the land in question to respondent No. 8 on lease hold

basis is that the official respondents have deviated from the

purpose for which the land in question was acquired and,

therefore, the action of the official respondents is illegal. On

this basis, it is being contended that the petitioner is entitled

to recover possession of the land in question from the official

respondents. To support this contention, learned counsel for

the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of

the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Royal Orchid Hotels

Ltd and Anr Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy & Ors, 2011 (10) SCC

608. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

establishment of a petrol pump and other shops on the land in 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816

7 WP(C) No. 1148/2025

question does not come within the purview of public purpose

and that the land could have only been used for widening of

the national highway as is clear from the language of the

Notification issued by the Collector under Section 4(1) of the

Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act.

10. If we have a look at the Notification issued by the Collector

under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land

Acquisition Act in the present case, it provides that the land in

question along with the other acquired land was to be

acquired for widening of national highway upto its four laning

meaning thereby the land was acquired for the public purpose.

It is a settled law that the State can exercise its power of

eminent domain to compulsorily acquire land for public

purpose notwithstanding the fact that rights of private parties

might be interfered with. In other words, the private purpose

must yield to the public purpose.

11. The question that is required to be determined in this case is

as to whether establishment of a petrol pump and for that

purpose leasing out a portion of the land in favour of a private

individual would come within the purview of the ‘public

purpose’.

12. If we have a look at the provisions contained in Section 16 of

the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816

8 WP(C) No. 1148/2025

(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Act of 1988’), it provides that

it shall be the function of the National Highways Authority of

India to develop, maintain and manage the national highways

and any other highways vested in or entrusted to it by the

Government. Clause (f) of sub-section 2 of the said provision

lays down that the authority for the discharge of its functions

may provide such facilities and amenities for the users of the

highways vested in it or entrusted to it as are in the opinion of

the authority, necessary for the smooth flow of traffic on such

highways.

13. From the above provision, it is clear that NHAI is obliged to

develop, manage and maintain national highways vested in it

and to construct way side amenities near the national

highways vested in it. As per the guidelines issued by the

Ministry of Transport, Government of India vide Circular No.

RW/NH-34032/4/91 dated 03.04.1998, the Authority has to

develop the following facilities on national highways:

(i) Parking lots

(ii) Snack bar/restaurant

(iii) Toilets

(iv) Rest rooms for short stay

(v) First aid

(vi) Telephone booths

(vii) Petrol pumps and minor repair shops

(viii) Kiosks for sales of medicines/sanitary items 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816

9 WP(C) No. 1148/2025

(ix) Land for future expansion.

14. Thus, it is clear that NHAI, in whom the Jammu -Srinagar

national highway has been vested, is duty bound to provide

wayside amenities of the type mentioned hereinabove. It is to

be noted that in terms of Section 13 of the Act of 1988, any

land acquired by the National Highways Authority for

discharging its functions under the Act is deemed to be land

needed for a public purpose. Since the NHAI, in terms of

Section 16(2) (f) of the Act of 1988 is obliged to create wayside

amenities, therefore, utilization of the land by NHAI for

creating such amenities in the face of deeming provision of

Section 13 of the Act becomes a public purpose. Thus, if the

respondents No. 1 and 4 have decided to utilize the land,

which has remained unused after the widening of the national

highway for the purpose of establishment of petrol pump or for

the purpose of creating any other wayside amenities, the same

can, by no stretch of reasoning, be termed as a purpose other

than public purpose.

15. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s

Royal Orchid Hotels (supra) is not applicable to the facts of

the present case. In the said case, the Karnataka State

Tourism Development Corporation had acquired land for the

purpose of Golf-cum-Hotel Resort near Bangalore Airport and 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816

10 WP(C) No. 1148/2025

out of this acquired land, the Corporation had transferred a

portion of the land to a real estate developer for the purpose of

implementing group housing scheme. The Supreme Court in

the facts and circumstances of that case came to the

conclusion that the Corporation did not have the jurisdiction

to transfer the land acquired for a public purpose to the

companies and thereby allow them to bypass the provisions of

Part VII of the Act. The Court further held that diversification

of the purpose for which land was acquired under Section 4(1)

read with Section 6 clearly amounted to a fraud on the power

of eminent domain.

16. The facts of the instant case are entirely different. It is not a

case where NHAI has transferred the land to a private person

for a purpose entirely alien to the development of national

highway but it is a case where NHAI has leased out the land to

respondent No. 8 for the purpose of developing a wayside

amenity, namely, establishment of a petrol pump, which is

included in the development of national highway. Thus, the

ratio laid down in M/s Royal Orchid Hotels (supra) is not

applicable to the facts of instant case.

17. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner has a right of pre-emption over the land in

question is also without any substance because the Jammu 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816

11 WP(C) No. 1148/2025

and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act stands already

repealed and as such, the petitioner cannot claim any right on

this basis, that too, by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court.

18. Another contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the land in question could have been leased in his

favour, if at all a petrol pump was to be established on spot.

In this regard, it is to be noted that the land has been leased

out to respondent No. 8 on the basis that he emerged as the

highest bidder after participating in the tender process. The

petitioner, without participating in the said process, cannot

claim any right of allotment of the land in question.

19. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this

petition. The same is, accordingly dismissed.

(SANJAY DHAR)

JUDGE

JAMMU

11.09.2025

Naresh/Secy.

Whether order is speaking: Yes

Whether order is reportable: Yes 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2816