The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of pronouncing the final award and disbursement of the award amount to the interested persons, emphasizing the absence of provisions for withholding compensation and the time frame for approval of compensation rates.

1. By virtue of this Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court on 10.3.1998, in OWP No. 1040/96 has been challenged. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Bench has allowed the writ petition of the respondents.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Central P. W.D. indented for acquisition of land for construction of a bridge over the Ballol Nallah. The concerned Collector, Assistant Commissioner ® Jammu got the revenue papers of the land proposed to be acquired, prepared and attested by both Tehsildar and Tehsildar Settlement Jammu Notifications under sections 4, 6, 7, 9 & 9-A of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act), were duly issued. The Committee appointed for fixation of rate recommended compensation @ 1.50 lac per kanal. An Award (described as Draft Award) was passed on 20.6.1994, whereunder the compensation was fixed at the rate of one lac per kanal. Reference of this Award in terms of section 11(2) of the Act, for approval of the rates proposed, was made to the relevant authority.

3. Possession of the land, however, was taken-over in 1989 itself, much before passing of the award. The construction of bridge was started in 1990 and completed in 1993. Respondents-writ petitioners in para 7 of the Award have been shown to be the owners of the land, measuring 20-kanal and 14-marlas (under survey No. 232-Min.) situated in village Jallo Chak, Tehsil Jammu. An amount of Rs. 34, 27,000/- as 80% of the Award was deposited by the authorities of C.P.W.D. vide Cheque dated 21.10.1995 under Executive Engineer, Madhupur Canal Division, C.P.W.D. Madhupurs letter No. MCD/55 (Misc)/95 dated 14.11.1995.

4. The writ petitioners, despite efforts, did not receive the payment. Thus they filed the writ petition on 17.12.96. The relief sought in the writ petition was one in the form of mandamus directing the appellants to release the compensation. The Writ Court allowed the writ. Hence this appeal.

5. It will be pertinent to place on record that the appeal was barred by limitation. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.12.1998 has condoned the delay,

6. The grounds taken in the appeal are as under:-

i. That for release of the compensation, issuance of a certificate under LB-10 of 1990 is a precondition. The concerned authority has refused to issue such certificate. Thus the learned Single Bench has missed this precondition and erroneously passed the writ.

ii. That while passing the impugned judgment the High Court Rules have been by-passed as no opportunity of filing counter was granted before passing the impugned judgment.

iii. That the learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the provisions of the Act. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the whole record.

7. Now we deal with the above points raised in the appeal in seriatim in the following manner:-

i. The plea that the compensation to the interested persons could be withheld for want of a certificate was duly registered by the learned Single Bench. The same did not find favour with him. This is so because this plea is not based upon any solid ground. There is absolutely no express provision which could have lent support to appellants case before the Writ Court for withholding the payment on this ground. Mr. Kapoor appearing for the State-appellant did not produce any law under which the Collector was bound to wait for a clearance certificate. A vague and general objection with respect to the so-called inability of the Collector to release the compensation for want of a certificate from the Assistant Settlement Officer (Collector Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) was raised. Learned Single Bench rejected this plea because no copy of the circular referred to in this behalf was ever placed before the Writ Court, Mr. Kapoor, despite having been asked to do so, did not produce any circular. Infact in the present case the very exercise of acquisition started from getting the proposal c