K. V. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. :

The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the proceedings taken by respondents 1 and 2 under the Land Acquisition Act.

(2) The petitioners were owners of a certain, land in the town of Anantnag. On a portion of the land they had built a three storeyed building with seven shops on the ground floor. The other two upper storey™s were used by them as residential quarters. On account of a fire which broke out in the Anantnag bazar in the year 1952, the building of the petitioners along with several other buildings was burnt down. The Chairman of the Town Area Committee Anantnag unauthorized allowed one Qadir Suthu predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 to 8, to take possession of three odd marlas of the petitioners land and build on it. Ignoring the protest of the petitioners, respondent No. 3 constructed a three storeyed building on the three odd marlas of land belonging to the petitioners. Having failed to obtain redress, the petitioners served a notice on the Government under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 23rd September 1953 setting out the above facts and also brought to their notice that another extent of land measuring about 5 marlas had been taken by the Public Works Department for widening road. Although the Government directed the subordinate revenue officers to take proceedings for assessing the amount of compensation and return of possession to the petitioners, nothing came out of it; on the other hand, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were started for acquisition of the petitioners land.

This was done with a view to cover up the illegal action of the Chairman of the Town Area Committee in allowing Qadir Suthu, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 to 8, to take unlawful possession and remain in enjoyment of the three odd marlas of land which belonged to the petitioners.

(3) A notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 12th Chet 2010. That notification expressly stated that the provisions of S. 5A of the Act shall not apply to the case. A notification under S. 6 was simultaneously published stating that the land was required for purposes of Anantnag Achabal road. No Notification as contemplated by S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was ever issued to the petitioners.

(4) The petitioners on learning in January 1956 that an award had been made applied to the Land Acquisition Officer for referring the question of quantum of compensation to court. That application was rejected on the ground that it was out of time. The petitioners subsequently learnt that the award was made by respondent 2 on 25th Har 2011 and was confirmed by the Revenue Minister on 9th June 1955. No notice of the award was ever issued to the petitioners under S. 12 (2) of the Act. The entire proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were taken behind the back of the petitioners and without giving them any opportunity to make their representation. The petitioners, however, accepted the amount of Rs. 2039/12/9 as compensation under protest.

(5) The petitioners allege that so far as the three odd marlas of land given over to Qadir Suthu are concerned, the land acquisition proceedings were absolutely mala fide and devoid of any public purpose to support it. They also say that the acquisition of land is contrary to the provisions of Art. 31 of the Constitution of India. Their fundamental rights under Arts. 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India are alleged to have been flagrantly violated by the respondents.

(6) Respondents 1 and 2 oppose the writ on the following grounds, namely, that the proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act were quite in order, that whatever defect there was has been cured by the passing of the Jammu and Kashmir Natural Calamities Destroyed Areas Improvement Act, 2011, that no fundamental right of the petitioners has been infringed, that the petitioners application is bel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document