The judgment establishes the principle that in cases of public projects funded by international organizations, the policy of rehabilitation prevails over compensatory claims, and public interest may override individual demands for construction or rehabilitation at specific sites.

Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.

1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the same set of petitioners one after the other. They were licensees of the shops located in a building belonging to the Government Estates Department situated at Magarmal Bagh, Srinagar, abreast the General Road, namely, Jehangir-Chowk - Indira Gandhi Airport Road. This is borne out by the orders issued by Deputy Director, Estates, Kashmir, Srinagar, in the years 2012 and 2013, copies whereof have been appended to SWP No. 156/2013, as Annexures A1 to A6. The building, having come in the alignment of the Project, Jehangir-Chowk - Ram Bagh Expressway (Flyover) Corridor, being executed by Jammu and Kashmir Reconstruction Agency (for short, ERA) which is funded by Asian Development Bank (ADB), is required to be demolished. The construction of Expressway (Flyover) Corridor has been perceived to be one of the most important projects of general public importance and interest in the city of Srinagar. The petitioners were promised rehabilitation and allotment of accommodation in a building constructed by ERA for the purpose just opposite to the High Court Complex at an equally prime location, i.e., the nook of the Exhibition Ground, popularly known as Exhibition Crossing or Jehangir Chowk, situated not more than 300 metres or so from the petitioners' present business site. The facts underlying the claim of the petitioners are briefly stated. The shops in question housed in the building owner by the Government Estates Department, were allotted to the petitioners as licencees in the years 2012 and 2013 subject to the conditions mentioned in their respective orders, which included the condition that the 'allottee shall execute the necessary licence deed with the Department within 15 days positively'. Prior to the issuance of such orders by the Deputy Director, Estates, Kashmir, Srinagar, the Collector, Land Acquisition, ERA, Kashmir, on 29.04.2010 published a notice in a local daily, purportedly, issued in exercise of the powers vested in him under Sub-Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990, notifying that the lands falling within the two terminals of the proposed Flyover Expressway, particulars whereof were delineated therein, were needed for public purpose, namely, for construction of Flyover Expressway Corridor from Jehangir Chowk to Ram Bagh. Objections were invited to the proposed acquisition of the said lands alongwith structures standing thereon.

2. Though the land appurtenant to and underneath the aforesaid Estates building comprised in survey No. 880, measuring 1 Kanal and 14 Marlas, is stated to be State land and the building(s) raised thereon belong to the Estates Department of the State, yet the land and the structure(s) existing thereon, too, were notified for acquisition by the aforesaid notification dated 25.04.2010. Some more State land is also stated to be existing there behind/adjacent to the aforesaid Estates buildings.

3. In response to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, petitioner No. 1 in SWP No. 156/2013, submitted his objections dated 17.05.2010 to the Director, ERA, requesting therein to alter the alignment of the proposed acquisitions or, in the alternative, to rehabilitate the objector by providing an alternate shop of the same and similar dimension in a shopping Mall/shopping line to be constructed in and around the proposed site of acquisition. It appears that the petitioners were informed that they would be rehabilitated in the Rehabilitation Complex that was being constructed by the ERA at the Exhibition Crossing. The petitioners, therefore, on 23.05.2011, collectively represented to the Director, ERA, Srinagar, suggesting therein that they may not be accommodated in the building constructed for the purpose, as aforesaid, but, instead, a shopping line for them may be constructed on the State land lying vacant behind/adjacent to the building sought to be acquired.

4. It appears that