Constructive notice and failure to raise objections to the validity of a notification in submissions under relevant sections of the Act can impact the court's decision on land acquisition proceedings.

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the notification dated 22.10.2011 issued under Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus to the respondents to treat the petitioners at par with the adjoining occupants in possession of the lands whose land has been de-notified from acquisition. In order to appreciate the petitioners' challenge to the impugned proceedings, few facts need mention which are stated infra. An indent was placed by the Irrigation and Flood Control Department for acquisition of land admeasuring 123 kanals situate at Rakh-Raipur, Tehsil and District Jammu for detouring of canals due to expansion of Jammu Airport. A notification was published under Section 4(1) dated 21.10.2011 in the daily newspapers on 23.10.2011 by which the objections were invited, however, no objections were received. Thereupon, a notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was issued on 08.11.2012 and subsequently, a notification under Section 9 and 9-A of the Act was issued on 18.12.2012 and an award was passed on 24.07.2014. Thereafter the writ petitions were filed in the month of August, 2014.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published by affixing the same at conspicuous places as well as by beat of drums and was not published in two newspapers having wide circulation. It is further submitted that even though the Collector had directed publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in Daily Excelsior, however, the same was published in Daily Greater Jammu which had started its publication in the year 2010. It is further submitted that Daily Greater Jammu and Kashmir Uzma do not have wide circulation in Jammu. It is further submitted that though specific averments have been made in the writ petition that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was neither published by beat of drums nor fixed at conspicuous places. However, aforesaid stand has not been contradicted in the reply. It is further submitted that the notification under Section 6 of the Act suffers from the vice of non application of mind inasmuch as no dates have been published in the notification. It is also submitted that the project for which the land is sought to be acquired is not in public interest. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on decisions in the cases of M/s. V.K.M. Kattha Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2013 SC 3557, Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 2012 SC 468, Patasi Devi vs. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 2013 SC 856 and Ali Mohd. Najar & Ors. vs. State & Ors., JKJ Soft JKJ/25223 : 2010 (2) JKJ 478 [HC], Bansi Lal Bhat vs. State of J & K & Ors., JKJ Soft JKJ/26811 : 2012 (4) JKJ 272 [HC], Balkrishan Dutta v. State of J&K, JKJ Soft JKJ/11874 : AIR 1975 J&K 27, Vishwa Nath v. Collector & Ors., JKJ Soft JKJ/22208 : 1982 KLJ 179.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have produced the newspapers namely Amar Ujala, Greater Jammu as well as Kashmir Uzma dated 23.10.2011 and submitted that the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the newspapers by which it was notified that land admeasuring 123 kanals were required to be acquired for the purpose of project in question. It is further submitted that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been published in accordance with Section 4 of the Act and the petitioners in their objections under Section 9 and 9-A did not raise any objection with regard to invalidity of the proceedings with regard to notification under Section 4 and notification under Section 6 of the Act. It is further submitted that the petitioners in OWP No. 1320/2014 are not the owners of the land in question but are the encroachers who have applied for regu