1. Petitioner has questioned the notification No.21 of 2007 dated 29.12.2007, issued by Collector, Land Acquisition, Pulwama, respondent No.2, on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed counter and resisted the petition on the grounds taken therein. The private respondents have adopted the objections filed by the respondents 1 to 3.

3. Precise case of the petitioner is, that petitioner is the owner of land measuring 2 kanals 18 marlas falling under khasra No.228/M at Rizwan Khewat, Muran Road, Pulwama. Respondent No.2 has issued notification for acquiring the land measuring 2 kanals 18 marlas for rehabilitation of family of famous poet "Mahjoor". The acquisition of land is not for public purpose but is just for rehabilitation of the said family. Collector has issued notification without any jurisdiction because the land is not required for any public purpose. Collector has ignored all the mandates of The State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (1934 A.D.) for short the Act. It is also averred that notification is outcome of malafide consideration and Assistant Commissioner is not competent to acquire land in terms of the provisions of the Act and it is only District Collector -- Deputy Commissioner, who is, Collector under the Act and, competent to draw proceedings in terms of the said Act.

4. Respondents have stated in the objections/ reply that District Development Board in its meeting decided to take over the house of Shayir Kashmir, Late Ghulam Ahmad Mahjoor, and its conversation into a museum and for acquiring land for rehabilitation of the said family. Accordingly, a process of acquisition of land was initiated on the request/ indent made by the Director Archives, Kashmir, for acquiring the land for rehabilitation of Poet Mahjoors family. It is also averred that SRO 213 dated 16th of May, 1968 came to be issued in terms of Section 6(4) of the Land Revenue Act, whereby Assistant Commissioner came to be vested with the powers of Collector for purposes of land acquisition.

5. The writ petition merits to be dismissed for the following reasons :

Admittedly, a conscious decision was made to take over the house of "Shayir Kashmir", late Ghulam Ahmad Mahjoor, and its conversation into Museum and it was also decided to rehabilitate "Shayir Kashmirs" family.

6. Section 4 of the Act contains the definition of `public purpose and clause-g provides that the expression public purpose includes:

"(v) the provision of land for residential purpose to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities or to persons displaced or affected by reasons of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State;."

7. The aforesaid definition of `Public Purpose provides that the State is within its powers to acquire land for purposes of rehabilitation of displaced or affected person(s) while implementing any scheme undertaken by the Government, local authorities, Corporation. Admittedly, the house of "Shayir Kashmir", Late Ghulam Ahmad Mahjoor, came to be taken over for converting it into Museum and by that decision his family stand displaced/ affected and in order to rehabilitate the said family, acquisition proceedings came to be initiated. Thus, the acquisition is for the public purpose.

8. It is for the Government/ State to take a decision. Any person interested or aggrieved cannot challenge the decision of the Government on the ground that acquisition is not for public purpose except on the ground of malafide. In the instant case, no doubt, the petitioner has half-heartedly stated that action is outcome of malafide consideration but against whom malafide is attributed is neither a party nor his name is indicated. Thus, petitioner has no right to question the acquisition proceedings and dispute the decision of the Government viz-a-viz public purpose.

9. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment delivered in case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document