Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Piaray Lal Tickoo vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 14 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 07.08.2025
Pronounced on: 14.08.2025
Case No.:- OWP No. 779/2007
IA No. 1139/2007
1. Piaray Lal Tickoo
S/o Late Shamboo Nath Tickoo
C/o H. No. 128, Upper Laxmi Nagar,
Sarwal, Jammu
2. Sham Sunder Tickoo
S/o Late Shamboo Nath Tickoo
C/o H. No. 314, Sector No. 3,
Shivalikpuram, Janipur Colony,
Janipur, Jammu
3. Smt. Tita Tickoo
W/o Dr. Roop Krishan Tickoo
R/o Tirath Nagar, Talab Tillo, Bohri Jammu.
4. Smt. Raj Dulari Tickoo
W/o Ravinder Punjabi
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Sector 5,
Burnai Road, Bantalab, Jammu
5. Kaniya Lal Raina, age 62 years
6. Bansi Lal Raina, age 54 years
Both sons of Late Sh. Anand Ram Raina,
Residents of Batapora Shopian,
District Pulwama
At present H. No. 254-C, Lane No. 4, Durga Nagar,
Sector-1, Roop Nagar, Jammu
7. Avtar Krishan Koul, age 70 years
8. Kaniya Lal Koul, age 52 years
Both sons of Late Sh. Jia Lal Koul,
Residents of Batapora,
At present H. No. 29, Block-D
Sector-1, Durga Nagar, Jammu
9. Pradhuman Krishan Koul, age 70 years,
S/o Sh. Radha Krishan Koul,
Resident of Batapora Shopian,
At present H. No. 16, Lane No. 6,
Bhuta Nagar, Jammu
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abirash Sharma, Advocate.
-2- OWP No. 779/2007
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
Vs
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Commissioner Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Jammu and Kashmir Government,
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Technical Education Department,
Jammu and Kashmir Government,
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar
3. Director,
Technical Education, Srinagar
4. Collector Land Acquisition,
[(Assistant Commissioner (R)]
Shopian, Srinagar.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present
petition, have challenged the proceedings initiated by
respondent No. 4-Collector Land Acquisition, Shopian for
acquisition of land measuring 9 kanals 4 marlas falling
under khasra Nos. 258, 258/1, 258/2, 259 and 593/267
situated at village Batapora Tehsil and District Shopian.
2. As per case of the petitioners, they were owners in
possession of the aforesaid land. Respondent No. 4 is
stated to have issued a notification under Section 4 of
the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990
(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘State Act’) on
-3- OWP No. 779/2007
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
01.07.2004. It has been submitted that the petitioners
came to know about the aforesaid notification
unofficially as the same had not been published in
newspapers having circulation in Jammu where the
petitioners were residing at the relevant time on account
of their migration from Valley.
3. The petitioners are stated to have addressed their
objections to respondent No. 4, contending therein that
there was no justification for acquisition of the land in
question when the policy of the Government was to bring
the migrants back to valley to settle them over there. It
was stated by the petitioners in their objections that they
had no other property in Kashmir valley for their
settlement.
4. It has been submitted that respondent No. 4, without
considering the objections filed by the petitioners and
without making any enquiry in terms of Section 5-A of
the State Act, recommended the case to respondent No.
1 for issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the State
Act. It has been alleged that the declaration under
Section 6 of the State Act has never been published in
any official gazette nor the same has been brought to the
notice of the petitioners by any means whatsoever. It
has also been contended that notice under Sections 9
-4- OWP No. 779/2007
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
and 9-A of the State Act was also not served upon the
petitioners.
5. It has been submitted that a communication dated
13.08.2007 came to be issued by respondent No. 4,
through the medium of which, the petitioners were
informed that final award was going to be announced on
28.08.2007 and the petitioners were asked to attend the
office of respondent No. 4.
6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned
acquisition proceedings on the grounds that notification
under section 4 of the State Act has not been published
in the manner as provided under the said Act and that
the petitioners, who had migrated to Jammu, were not
served with the said notice. It has been further
contended that when the petitioners came to know about
it unofficially, they filed their objections but the same
were not considered by the official respondent No. 4.
Even the declaration under Section 6 of the State Act
has not been published in the manner as required under
law.
7. Respondent No. 4, in its reply to the writ petition, has
submitted that respondent No. 3 had raised an indent
dated 16.06.2004 with it for acquisition of land
belonging to the petitioners for construction of ITI
complex at Shopian. Accordingly, notification under
-5- OWP No. 779/2007
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 01.07.2004. It
has been submitted that admittedly the petitioners had
the information about the aforesaid notification and they
filed their objections, which were duly received by
respondent No. 4 on 10.08.2004. It has been further
submitted that the notification under Section 4 of the
State Act was sent to Girdawar/Patwari who were
directed to give publicity by beat of drums and by
pasting of copies of notification. It has been submitted
that the notification was published in Daily Subah-e-
Kashmir dated 09.07.2004 and Daily Srinagar News
dated 24.04.2004. A copy of the notification was also
sent to Relief Commissioner, Migrants, Jammu for
information of the concerned.
8. According to the respondent No. 1, the objections filed by
the petitioners were not received within the stipulated
fifteen days time, still then the same were referred to the
Tehsildar for spot verification, consultation of revenue
records and furnishing of parawise reply. After receiving
parawise reply dated 24.08.2004, the case was referred
to the Government for issuance of declaration under
Section 6 in terms of communication dated 31.08.2004.
It has been submitted that there was no legal
requirement for complying with the provisions of Section
-6- OWP No. 779/2007
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
5(A) of the State Act because the objections were received
beyond the stipulated time.
9. It has been further submitted that vide notification No.
129 RD of 2005 dated 14.01.2005 declaration under
section 6,7 and 17 was issued by the Government and
thereafter notification under Section 9, 9(A) of the State
Act was issued on 09.03.2005 which was published in
daily newspaper ―Roshni‖ dated 13.03.2005 and ―Daily
Aftab‖ dated 14.03/2005. The copy of said notification
was endorsed to the Relief Commissioner, Migrants,
Jammu. It has been submitted that because the
petitioners did not furnish their addresses in their
objections dated 10.08.2004 as such, the copies of the
notifications under section 9 and 9(A) of the State Act
could not be sent to them at their addresses. It has been
submitted that the date of announcement of award was
fixed on 27.08.2007 and the award was announced on
the said date.
10. At the motion stage itself, this Court passed an interim
order dated 17.09.2007 directing maintenance of status
quo with regard to acquisition proceedings. However, it
appears that during the pendency of the writ petition,
the indenting department raised construction on the
aforesaid land belonging to the petitioners, which
prompted them to file the contempt petition. In answer
-7- OWP No. 779/2007
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
to the said contempt petition, statement of facts was filed
by the official respondents in which it was submitted
that by the time interim order was passed by this Court,
acquisition proceedings had already been taken to their
logical conclusion and award dated 27.08.2007 had been
passed by the Collector. It has also been submitted that
amount of compensation has been sent to the Relief
Commissioner, Migrants Jammu for onward
disbursement to the land owners as per apportionment
statement.
11. It is also pertinent to mention here that the
respondent/Collector was directed to produce the record
relating to the acquisition proceedings and in this
regard, repeated directions were passed by this Court.
Ultimately, affidavit dated 13.03.2023 came to be filed by
Collector, Land Acquisition, Shopian in which it has
been submitted that all the records of the office have
been gutted in fire incident on 04.09.2016, as such, no
record of the case is available with the said office.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of the case.
13. The petitioners have challenged the acquisition
proceedings primarily on the grounds that no
notification under Section 4(1) of the State Act has not
been published in the manner as provided in the said
-8- OWP No. 779/2007
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
provision and when they filed their objections to the said
notification, upon gathering knowledge about the same
from unofficial sources, their objections were not
considered by the Collector, though the Collector was
obliged to consider the said objections of section 5-A of
the State Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that
declaration under Section 6 of the State Act has also not
been published in the manner as provided under the
State Act.
14. Before determining the merits of the contentions raised
by the petitioners, it would be apt to refer to the relevant
provisions of the State Act. The same are reproduced as
under:
―4. Publication of preliminary notification
and powers of officers thereupon — (1)
Whenever land in any locality is needed or is
likely to be needed for any public purpose the
Collector shall notify it–
(a) through a public notice to be affixed at
convenient places in the said locality and shall
also cause it to be known by beat of drum and
through the local Panchayats and Patwaries;
(b) in the Government Gazette; and
(c) in two daily newspapers having largest
circulation in the said locality of which at least
one shall be in the regional language.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
5. Payment of damage.–The officer so
authorised shall at the time of such entry pay or
tender payment for all necessary damage to be
done as aforesaid, and, in case of dispute as to
the sufficiency of the amount so paid or
tendered, he shall at once refer the dispute to
the Provincial Revenue authority within thirty
days of its being pronounced, whereupon the
decision of that officer shall be final.
5-A. Hearing of objections.– Any person
interested in any land which has been notified
under section4,sub-section (1),as being needed
or likely to be needed for a public purpose may,
within fifteen days [after such land is notified in
the manner prescribed in clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of section 4 as being needed or likely
to be needed for a public purpose, object to the
acquisition of the land or of any land in the
locality, as the case may be.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be
made to the Collector in writing, and the
Collector shall give the objector an opportunity
of being heard either in person 1[or by pleader or
by a person authorised by him] and shall, after
hearing all such objections and after making
such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks
necessary, submit the case for the decision of
the Government, together with the record of the
proceedings held by him and a report containing
his recommendations on the objections. The
decision of the Government on the objections
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
10 OWP No. 779/2007
shall be final.
(3) For the purpose of this section, a person
shall be deemed to be interested in land who
would be entitled to claim an interest in
compensation if the land were acquired under
this Act.
6. Declaration that land is required for public
purpose.–(1) When the Government is satisfied
after considering the report, if any, made under
section 5-A, sub-section (2), that any particular
land is needed for public purpose, a declaration
shall be made to that effect under the signature
of the Revenue Minister or of some officer duly
authorised in this behalf: Provided that no such
declaration shall be made unless the
compensation to be awarded for such property is
to be paid wholly or partly out of the public
revenues or some fund controlled or managed by
a local authority.
(2) The declaration shall be published in official
Gazette, and shall state the district or other
territorial division in which the land is situate,
the purpose for which it is needed, its
approximate areas and where a plan shall have
been made of the land, the place where such
plan may be inspected.
(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive
evidence that land is needed for a public
purpose, and after making such declaration the
Government may acquire the land in manner
hereinafter appearing.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
11 OWP No. 779/2007
9. Notice to Persons Interested. –(1) The
Collector shall then cause public notice to be
given at convenient places on or near the land to
be taken, stating that the Government intends to
take possession of the land, and that the claims
to compensation for all interests in such land
may be made to him.
(2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the
land so needed, and shall require all persons
interested in the land to appear personally or by
agent, before the Collector at a time and place
therein mentioned (such time not being earlier
than fifteen days after the date of publication of
notice), and to state the nature of their
respective interests in the land and the amount
and particulars of their claims to compensation
for such interests and their objections (if any) to
the measurements made under section
8. The Collector may in any case, require such
statements to be made in writing and signed by
the party or his agent.
(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the
same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land
and on all such persons known or believed to be
interested therein, or to be entitled to act for
persons so interested, as reside, or have agents
authorised to receive service on their behalf,
within the revenue district in which the land is
situate.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
12 OWP No. 779/2007
(4) In case any person so interested resides
elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice
shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed
to him at his last known residence, address or
place of business and registered in accordance
with the Postal Rules in force for the time being
in that behalf.‖
23. From a perusal of provisions contained in Section 4 quoted
above, it is clear that whenever land in a particular locality
is needed for any public purpose, the Collector has to issue
a public notice in the manner as provided under Clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of the said provision. In terms of Clause (a),
notice has to be affixed at a convenient place in the
relevant locality and beat of drums has to be undertaken so
as to make it known to the interested persons. Besides
this, notice is also to be served through local Panchayats
and Patwaries. As per Clause (b), it has also to be
published in the Government Gazette and in terms of
Clause (c) notice has to be published in two daily
newspapers having wide circulation in the locality and one
of these daily newspapers has to be in regional language.
24. The Supreme Court has, in the case of “J&K Housing
Board & Anr. Vs Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & ors.”
(2011) 4 SCC 714Vol. 10 SCC 714 held that the manner
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
13 OWP No. 779/2007
of publication of notification under Section 4 of the State
Act is mandatory. While holding so the Supreme Court
observed that the object of publication in terms of Sub-
Section 4(1)(c) of the Act is to intimate the people who are
likely to be affected by the notification. The Supreme Court
relied upon ratio laid down by it in the case of “Khub
Chand vs State of -9- WP(C) No. 1361/2023 -9-
Rajasthan” AIR 1967 SC 1074: (1967) 1 SCR 120,
wherein the said Court has observed as under:
“7. This argument was not accepted by the High
Court, and in our view rightly. The provisions of a
statute conferring power on the Government to
compulsorily acquire lands shall be strictly construed.
Section 4 in clear terms says that the Collector shall
cause public notice of the substance of such
notification to be given at convenient places in the said
locality. The provision is mandatory in terms.
Doubtless, under certain circumstances, the
expression “shall” is construed as “may”. The term
“shall” in its ordinary significance is mandatory and
the court shall ordinarily give that interpretation to
that term unless such an interpretation leads to some
absurd or inconvenient consequence or be at variance
with the intent of the legislature, to be collected from
other parts of the Act. The construction of the said
expression depends on the provisions of a particular
Act, the setting in which the expression appears, the
2025:JKLHC-JMU:234314 OWP No. 779/2007
object for which the direction is given, the
consequences that would flow from the infringement of
the direction and such other considerations. The object
underlying the said direction in Section 4 is obvious.
Under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, after such
a notice was given, the officer authorised by the
Government in that behalf could enter the land and
interfere with the possession of the owner in the
manner prescribed thereunder. The legislature thought
that it was absolutely necessary that before such
officer can enter the land of another, the owner thereof
should have a clear notice of the intended entry. The
fact that the owner may have notice of the particulars
of the intended acquisition under Section 5(2) does not
serve the purpose of Section 4, for such a notice shall
be given after the appropriate officer or officers enter
the land and submit the particulars mentioned in
Section 4. The objects of the two sections are different:
the object of one section is to give intimation to the
person whose land is sought to be acquired, of the
intention of the officer to enter his land before he does
so and that of the other is to enable him to know the
particulars of the land which is sought to be acquired.
In the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(Central Act 1 of
1894) there is no section corresponding to Section
5(2)of the Act. Indeed sub-section (2) of Section 5of the
Act was omitted by Act 15 of 1960 and Section 5-A
was suitably amended to bring the said provision in
conformity with those of Central Act 1 of 1894.
Whatever may be said on the question of construction
after the said amendment — on which we do not
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
15 OWP No. 779/2007
express any opinion — before the amendment, Sections
4and 5(2)were intended to serve different purposes. 8.
Indeed, the wording of Section 4(2)of the Act leads to
the same conclusion. It says, “thereupon it shall be
lawful for any officer, generally or specially authorized
by the Government in this behalf, and for his servants
and workmen to enter upon and survey and take
levels of any land in such locality….” The expressions
“thereupon” and “shall be lawful” indicate that unless
such a public notice is given, the officer or his servants
cannot enter the land. It is a necessary condition for
the exercise of the power of entry. The non-compliance
with the said condition makes the entry of the officer
or his servants unlawful. On the express terms of sub-
section (2), the officer or his servants can enter the
land to be acquired only if that condition is complied
with. If it is not complied with, he or his servants
cannot exercise the power of entry under Section
4(2),with the result that if the expression “shall” is
construed as “may”, the object of the sub-section itself
will be defeated. The statutory intention is, therefore
clear, namely, that the giving of public notice is
mandatory. If so, the notification issued under Section
4without complying with the said mandatory direction
would be void and the land acquisition proceedings
taken pursuant thereto would be equally void.”
25. Similar views have been expressed by three Division
Benches of this Court in the cases of ―Bansi Lal Bhat vs
State of J&K &ors.” (2012) 4 JKJ 272, “Mussafar
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
16 OWP No. 779/2007
Ahmed Beg &ors. vs State of J&K &ors” (2021) 6 JKJ
20 and “Bashir Ahmed Bhat vs State &ors” (2023) 2
JKJ 310″.
26. From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is
clear that publication of notification issued under Section
4 of the State Act in the manner prescribed therein is
compulsory and the publication of the notice has to be
undertaken by all the three modes as referred to in the
said provision.
27. Similarly, as per Section 5-Aof the State Land Acquisition
Act, Collector has to afford an opportunity of being heard
to the interested persons either in person or by pleader or
by an authorised person of an objector. The Supreme
Court has, in the case of “Union of India vs Shivraj“
(2014) 6 SCC 564 held that right given under Section 5-A
to land owners/interested persons to be heard on their
objections is not a mere formality. It has been held that
the Collector is duty bound to objectively consider the
arguments advanced by the objector and make
recommendations duly supported by brief reasons as to
why a particular piece of land should or should not be
acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objector
merits acceptance. Division Bench of this Court in Bansi
2025:JKLHC-JMU:234317 OWP No. 779/2007
Lal Bhat‘s case (supra) has held that grant of opportunity
of hearing in respect of objections filed by interested
persons under Section 5-A of the State Act is mandatory.
28. Section 6 of the State Land Acquisition Act, as quoted
hereinbefore, provides that declaration has to be
published in official Gazette. Similarly, Section 9 of the
State Act mandates the Collector to serve notice on the
occupier of the land in question as also on all such
persons known or believed to be interested therein.
Division Bench of this Court in Muzzafar Ahmed Beg’s
case (supra) has held that non-publication of declaration
issued under Section 6 of the Act in the official Gazette
vitiates the proceedings for acquisition.
29. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now
advert to the facts of the present case. As per the version
of the official respondents, the notification under Section
4 of the State Act was published in two daily newspapers,
namely, Subah-e-Kashmir dated 09.07.2004 and Srinagar
News dated 24.04.2004 and it was forwarded to
Girdawar/Patwari with the direction to give publicity to
the notification by beat of drums and by pasting of notice
of notification at four convenient places. It is the further
case of the official respondents that a copy of the
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
18 OWP No. 779/2007
notification was also endorsed to Relief Commissioner
(Migrants), Jammu for information of the concerned.
30. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners had left the
valley and migrated to Jammu in the year 1990. Thus,
the petitioners were not residing at Shopian and this was
to the knowledge of the official respondents. The purpose
of publication of notification under Section 4 is to make it
known to the interested persons who are likely to be
affected by the acquisition of the land. The provision is
mandatory so that the land owner is given the information
with regard to the proposed acquisition before an
authorized officer of the Government enters the said land.
Unless the notice is published in the manner as provided
under Section 4 of the State Act, the entry of the officer
authorized by the Government would be unlawful.
31. In the instant case, the respondents have, as per their
own version, published the notice in two daily
newspapers, namely, Subah-e-Kashmir dated 09.07.2004
and Srinagar News dated 24.04.2004. It is a fact of
common knowledge that none of these newspapers has
any significant circulation even in Kashmir not to speak of
Jammu where the petitioners were residing. The
expression used in Clause (C) of Section 4(1) of the State
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
19 OWP No. 779/2007
Act is ‘two daily newspapers having largest circulation
in the locality’. The newspapers in which the
notification is stated to have been published, cannot by
any stretch of imagination, be termed as newspapers
having largest circulation even in Kashmir valley. The
petitioners admittedly were residing in Jammu at the
relevant time. This was in the notice of the Collector.
Therefore, it would have prudent for the Collector to get
the notification published in a newspaper having
circulation in Jammu. Instead of doing so, he got the
notification published in two unknown newspapers having
hardly any circulation, besides this he sent notification to
the office of Relief commissioner, Migrants, Jammu. There
is nothing on record to show that the said office has
forwarded these notifications to the petitioners.
32. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in
the case of Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul‘s case (supra)
has held that publication of notice under Section 4 of the
State Act in a newspaper having circulation in Jammu
and Kashmir does not meet the requirements of law
because the land owners in the said case were not
residing in Jammu and Kashmir. Having regard to the
manner in which the Collector has published the
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
20 OWP No. 779/2007
notification under section 4(1) of the State Act,
particularly when there is nothing on record to show that
the said notification has been published in the
Government Gazette, it can safely be inferred that there
has been infraction of mandatory provision of section 4(1)
of the State Act.
33. The petitioners, in any case, did submit their objections.
Had it been a case where the Collector would have
considered the said objections of the petitioners, perhaps
strict non-adherence to the provisions contained in
Section 4(1) of the State Act would not have been of much
significance but in the present case, admittedly the
Collector did not consider the objections stated to have
been addressed by the petitioners in response to the
notification under Section 4(1) of the State Act on the
ground that the said objections were received belatedly.
Although the Collector in its reply has submitted that
upon receipt of belated objections of the petitioners, a
report was called from the Tehsildar but it is not
forthcoming from his reply as to whether the said
objections were actually considered by the Collector. In
fact, the Collector in his reply has categorically stated that
there was no requirement of complying with the provisions
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
21 OWP No. 779/2007
of Section 5-A of the State Act and providing an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner because their
objections were received belatedly meaning thereby that
the Collector has not followed the requirement of Section
5-A of the State Act which is mandatory in nature.
34. As per the said provision, the Collector has to afford an
opportunity of being heard to the interested persons either
in person or by pleader or by an authorized person of an
objector. The Supreme Court of India in the case Union of
India Vs. Shiv Raj and ors reported as 2014 (6) SCC
564 has held that right given under Section 5-A of the
State Act to the interested persons to be heard on their
objections is not a mere formality. It has been held that
the Collector is duty bound to objectively consider the
arguments advanced by the objector and make
recommendations duly supported by brief reasons as to
why the particular piece of land should or should not be
acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objector
merits acceptance. A Division Bench of this Court in
Ashok Kumar Padha Vs. State of J&K & ors, OWP No.
822/2016 along with connected matter decided on
31.12.2021 has held that grant of opportunity of hearing
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
22 OWP No. 779/2007
of objections filed by interested persons under Section 5-A
of the State Act is mandatory.
35. In the present case, admittedly, the Collector has not
followed the mandate of Section 5-A of the State Act.
Non-adherence to the provisions contained in Section 4(1)
of the State Act in its strict terms would have lost its
significance once the petitioners had submitted their
objections, but the fact that the Collector did not consider
the objections of the petitioners in the manner as provided
under Section 5-A of the Act renders the acquisition
proceedings untenable.
36. There is yet another aspect of the matter which is required
to be noticed. Although, copy of the declaration under
Section 6 of the State Act has not been placed on record
by the respondents, yet it appears from a perusal of
notification issued under Section 9 and 9-A of the Act that
the Government, vide its notification dated 14.01.2005,
had issued the declaration. It also appears from the
record that pursuant to the said declaration, the award
has been passed by the Collector on 28.08.2007. Thus,
the award has been passed by the Collector after more
than two years of issuance of declaration under Section 6
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
23 OWP No. 779/2007
of the State Act prior to the filing of the present writ
petition.
37. Section 11-B of the State Act provides that a Collector has
to make an award within a period of two years from the
date of publication of declaration and if no award is made
within the said period, the entire proceedings for
acquisition of land would lapse. The explanation to the
said provision provides that the period during which the
action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the said
declaration is stayed by a Court has to be excluded.
38. In the present case, the acquisition proceedings were
stayed by this Court after the passing of the award.
Therefore, the said stay order would not come to the
rescue of the official respondents. The declaration under
Section 6, as already stated, has been issued by the
Government on 14.01.2005. Thus, the final award dated
28.08.2007 has been passed by the Government beyond
the period of two years. Even if it is assumed that the
respondents had taken resort to urgency provisions
contained in Section 17 of the State Act still then the
acquisition proceedings in this case cannot be saved for
the reason that there is nothing on record to suggest that
the official respondents have complied with the provisions
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
24 OWP No. 779/2007
contained in Section 17-A of the State Act which
mandates down payment of 80% of the compensation to
the land owners before taking possession of land under
Section 17 of the State Act.
39. The assertion of the respondents is that they have
deposited the land compensation amount with the office of
Relief Commissioner, Migrants, Jammu but there is
nothing on record to show that the said compensation has
been disbursed to the petitioners at any stage meaning
thereby that the petitioners have not been paid 80% of the
compensation assessed by the Government before the
indenting department had taken over possession of the
land in question. Thus, mandate of Section 17-A of the
State Act has not been followed in the present case,
therefore, it cannot be stated that the land in question has
vested with the respondents so as to take the case out of
the rigours of Section 11-B of the State Act. The
acquisition proceedings have, therefore, lapsed.
40. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, the writ
petition is allowed and the impugned acquisition
proceedings including the award dated 28.08.2007 passed
by the Collector are quashed. The respondents are
directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in respect
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2343
25 OWP No. 779/2007
of the land in question in accordance with the provisions
contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay the compensation to the
petitioner. The entire exercise shall be concluded by the
respondents within a period of six months from the date a
copy of this order is made available to the respondents.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
14.08.2025
Naresh/Secy.
Whether order is speaking: Yes
Whether order is reportable: Yes