The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mandatory provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, regarding the publication of notification and grant of opportunity of hearing to the interested persons, are mandatory and must be strictly complied with.

1. These two appeals* under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent are directed against the common judgment and order dated 23.12.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition, OWP no. 963/2011 and CMP no. 1528/2011.

2. The appellant-writ petitioners are aggrieved by acquisition of their land which is sought to be acquired by the respondent-State for a Public purpose of developing a Heritage site near Mausoleum of Poet “Souch Kral” at Village Inder (Pulwama). The appellant-writ petitioners are migrants and they placed reliance on a decision of the State Government dated 14.07.2009 which postulates that the land and property belonging to the migrants should not be included in the acquisition and should be acquired only as a last resort.

3. Facts in brief which have led to the filing of the instant appeal are that the appellant-writ petitioners and the proforma respondent no. 4 are owners in possession of land bearing survey nos. 876, 887, 888, 895, 896 and 908 situated at Vilage Inder Tehsil and District Pulwama. The case set up by them is that they were forced to migrate from the Village in the year 1990 or thereafter due to militancy as such they are living as migrants at Jammu. A notification bearing no. 22 of 2008 dated 28.01.2008 was issued by the Collector Land Acquisition, Pulwama under Section 4(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (for brevity to be referred as the Act) reflecting the intention of the State to acquire 17 kanal 11 marlas of land situated at Village Inder Tehsil and District Pulwama. The aforesaid notification included the land belonging to the appellant-writ petitioners. They raised objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The notification in fact, lapsed as is evident from the perusal of the original record. The noting on the file would show that the intending department of Tourism did not deposit the funds which eventually led to the conclusion in para no. 31 of the original file that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act proposing the acquisition of land had lapsed and de-notification was suggested.

4. A new beginning was made again by issuing a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act on 24.05.2011 for acquisition of the land of the appellant-writ petitioners and the proforma respondent no.4. The total area of land was reduced to 8 kanal and 1 sarsai. The appellant-writ petitioners filed their objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 06.06.2011. Thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29.06.2011. Another notification was issued under Section 9 on 14.07.2011. The appellant-writ petitioners filed OWP no. 963/2011 challenging the issuance of notification on numerous grounds. They complained that their fundamental right to hold and enjoy the property and their rights being the migrants given by the State by issuing Circular dated 14.07.2009 have also been violated. It was also urged that there was no public purpose and the personal hearing was required to be afforded to them as is contemplated by the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

5. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned Single Judge rejected various arguments of the appellant-writ petitioners. The first argument was based on Circular dated 14.07.2009 which contemplates that acquisition of migrant properties would be contradictory to the commitment of the State Government to encourage the process of their return to the Valley. It was thus emphasised upon all concerned that acquisition of land belonging to Kashmiri Pandit must be avoided and it must be acquired only as a last resort. The argument has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by recording the finding, which reads as under:-

“In the instant case near the Mauseleum of Souch Kral the said area/land is available. From the records as have been produced for perusal it is quite clear that there i