Ownership or Claimed Possession? Land Owners, Revenue Dept Must Take These Steps for Land Acquisition in J&K

Mere possession claims in land acquisition cases in Jammu & Kashmir are, ground experiences show, in most instances, bogus or fraudulent in nature. These claims are often enforced through muscle power and administrative convenience, bypassing rightful ownership and undermining legal processes. It is imperative that such practices are actively challenged by the Revenue Department, the actual landowners and anyone in possession of lawful title deeds. These cases represent not only an erosion of lawful rights but also a breakdown of administrative and legal ethics, especially as infrastructure projects expand across the region, writes Mohammad Amin Mir

Land ownership disputes in Jammu & Kashmir have assumed complicated dimensions, particularly around infrastructure expansion projects like highways and railways. A recurring and deeply problematic scenario has emerged: compensation is some cases is awarded to individuals in claimed physical possession of land, based solely on self-declared affidavits, while the actual recorded owners are neither informed nor compensated. Once compensation is disbursed to the claimed possessor, Revenue officials proceed to mutate the land in the name of the Government, effectively erasing the recorded owner’s rights without legal due process or fair recompense.

This practice is in direct violation of the legal frameworks governing land acquisition. Both the colonial-era Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and the more recent Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 stipulate that compensation must be paid to the rightful owners, not merely to claimed possessors.

Ownership, as recognized in revenue records (Jamabandi), remains the legal basis for entitlement unless a competent court has declared otherwise. Possession claim alone — unless proven to have ripened into adverse possession over time —is not sufficient to claim ownership.

In practice, however, possession is in some cases  treated as a surrogate for ownership, primarily for administrative convenience. Simple affidavits, often unchecked, are used to justify compensation payouts. This process circumvents essential safeguards: no formal inquiry, no notification to the titleholder, and no reference to a court in cases of dispute. Consequently, recorded owners find their land mutated to “Sarkar” (Government) without receiving any compensation, creating a fundamental legal and ethical contradiction.

The mutation process, meant to reflect changes in ownership post-acquisition, becomes a legal hazard in such cases. Revenue officers, acting under pressure or without sufficient oversight, strike off the names of recorded owners and enter the Government as the new titleholder, falsely certifying that compensation has been paid. Such actions violate constitutional protections, notably Article 300A, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law and with appropriate compensation.

The courts, including the Supreme Court of India, have repeatedly upheld that ownership cannot be extinguished without due process and adequate compensation. In Nelson Motis v. Union of India (1992) and Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand (2011), the apex court underscored the importance of notifying and compensating the lawful owner, or referring the matter to a civil court under Section 30 or 31 of the relevant Act. Affidavits submitted by possessors do not carry the legal weight of a title document. As held in Government of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao (1982), administrative declarations cannot override legitimate title claims.

For Revenue officials caught in this bind, the legal and administrative course is clear. They must verify the Jamabandi to identify the actual owner, scrutinize the name of the compensation awardee, and note any discrepancies.

If the award has been granted to a non-titleholder, mutation should be withheld, or dual mutation entries must be considered: one reflecting Government acquisition for the compensated portion and another noting pending disputes or unpaid compensation for the recorded owner. Additionally, they must document such anomalies in the mutation register and Roznamcha to shield themselves from liability.

Recorded owners who find themselves excluded from compensation have legal recourses. They can apply to the Collector for re-determination, challenge the mutation in civil courts under the Land Revenue Act, or file writ petitions in High Courts for violation of constitutional rights. Furthermore, if a mutation has already been made unlawfully, they may pursue correction mutations (Infarz) upon obtaining a favourable court decree.

This issue is not an isolated phenomenon but a growing structural challenge amid mass land acquisitions for development projects across Jammu & Kashmir.

A policy overhaul is urgently needed.

Mandatory title verification before disbursement, compulsory notification to recorded owners, court references in cases of conflicting claims, and a complete ban on unauthenticated affidavits are essential. Digitizing land records and introducing automated flags for overlapping claims can also help address this problem.

Ultimately, justice in land acquisition must align with the principle that compensation follows ownership, not just claimed occupation. Administrative convenience cannot justify legal violations.

If Person A is the owner, Person B is the possessor, and the Government is the acquirer, the rightful path is to compensate Person A—not merely reward whoever claims to be on the land. Upholding land title sanctity is essential for ensuring justice, legal integrity, and public trust in the land administration system in J&K.

Mohammad Amin Mir is a columnist at Ziraat Times, who writes on legal and policy issues on land governance and socio-economic issues in Jammu & Kashmir.