Back
2016 Supreme(J&K) 403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JJ.
Dalip Singh - Appellants
Vs.
State of J&K and Ors. - Respondent
LPAOW No. 44 of 2016, MP No. 01 of 2016 and Caveat No. 2111 of 2016
Decided On : 07-11-2016
For the Appellant : Vishal Goel
For the Respondents: R.S. Jamwal
The principle of public interest prevailing over individual or smaller public interest was emphasized by the court.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Validity of Acquisition Proceedings - J & K Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 - Section 4, Section 6, Section 7, Section 9, Section 9-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the mandatory procedures contained in Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990 and their compliance, as well as the notification requirements under Sections 4, 6, 7, 9, and 9-A. The court also highlighted the principles of public interest prevailing over individual or smaller public interest, as established in various Supreme Court decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The land acquisition proceedings were initiated for detouring of irrigation channel due to expansion of Jammu Airport. The appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings on the grounds of non-compliance with mandatory procedures and lack of awareness. The appellant also made demands for relocation allotment, monetary compensation, and government employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant gave up his right to object to the acquisition proceedings and made specific demands, indicating lack of opposition to the acquisition. The court also noted the delay in approaching the court after the final award was passed.
Issues: The issues involved non-compliance with mandatory procedures, lack of awareness about the acquisition proceedings, and the appellant's demands indicating lack of opposition to the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's demands indicated lack of opposition to the acquisition proceedings and that the delay in approaching the court after the final award was passed was not justified. The court also emphasized the principle of public interest prevailing over individual or smaller public interest.
Final Decision: The L.P. Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J.
1. This L.P. Appeal is preferred against the order made in OWP No. 1156/2014, dated 13.10.2016 upholding the land acquisition proceedings initiated against the appellant's land measuring 7 kanals 11 marlas situated at Belicharana Rakh Raipur Jammu for the purposes of detouring of irrigation channel due to expansion of Jammu Airport. The total land involved in the acquisition proceedings was 123 kanals, out of which 111 kanals of land has already been acquired and possession has already been taken over. The grounds of attack raised by the appellant before the writ court was that notification was issued on 22.10.2011 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 was not published as required under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and the same was also not affixed at a conspicuous place in and around the area/land intended to be acquired, hence the appellant was not aware of the acquisition proceedings initiated and therefore, he could not file objections under Section 5(a) of the Act. It is also contended that declaration under Section 6(a) was also not published and only a notification calling for objections under Section 9 & 9-A of the Act was issued calling upon the interested persons to attend the office of the 2nd respondent for determining the compensation in December 2012 and at that time only the appellant came to the know about the acquisition proceedings and he immediately made a representation to drop the acquisition proceedings.
2. In reply to the said grounds raised, the respondents have filed objections stating that the indent was placed by the Indenting Department i.e. Irrigation and Flood Control Department for acquisition of land measuring 123 kanals situated in village Rakh Raipur Tehsil and District Jammu for detouring of irrigation channels due to expansion of Jammu Airport. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated as per the J & K Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990. Notification under Section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21.10.2011 calling for objections, if any. The said notification was published in local daily newspapers, however, no objections were received from the appellant. The Government of J & K, Revenue Department issued notification under Sections 6, 7 & 17 of the Act on 08.11.2012 and thereafter notification under Section 9 & 9-A of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18.12.2012, calling for objections if any with regard to quantum of compensation and measurement of the land within the stipulated time. The final award was passed on 24.07.2014 and only after passing the final award determining compensation, writ petition was filed on 02.08.2014. It is the contention of the respondents that the appellant submitted a representation after getting alleged knowledge about the acquisition proceedings on 04.01.2013 and made the following demands in the said objections/representation:
"i. Relocation allotment in urban area nearer to this area.
ii. Monetary compensation of four lakh per marla minimum.
iii. Full monetary compensation in one installment and make your construction work start after paying full amount.
iv. Government employment of one family member of each family.
v. The Government has valued the cost of our houses structure is 14 lakh and 2 lakh (approximately). But this amount is not enough for constructing new same structure in other place. So please make proper valuation of our structures."
3. The learned Single Judge, considering the plea made by the appellant in his representation dated 04.01.2013, giving up his right particularly objecting the acquisition proceedings and claiming allotment of alternate land, monetary compensation of Rs. 4 lacs per marla, Government employment for one of his family members etc., and having regard to the major project for which the acquisition proceedings were initiated and 111 kanals of lands were already taken possession as well as the delay on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court, c
