Order

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing OWP Nos. 2327 and 2331/2018, as common issues of law and facts are involved.

2. The facts are being taken from OWP No. 2327/2018. The petitioner had approached this Court praying for the following reliefs :

“(i) Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to forcibly demolish the structure/house of the petitioner or encroach upon the land of the petitioner without acquiring the land of the petitioner and paying compensation under law.

(ii) Writ of Prohibition; for bearing the respondents from forcibly occupying or trespassing or taking over the property of the petitioner situated at Village Chak Avtara, Bisnah without following due procedure under Land Acquisition Act or any other law and issuing prior notice to petitioner and following procedure as envisaged under law.”

3. As is evident from the pleadings in the instant writ petition, the issue sought to be raised by the petitioner was that he is owner of a piece of plot measuring 11 marlas, where he had constructed his house. The petitioner in OWP No. 2331 of 2018 is owner of a plot measuring 10 marlas, where he claims to have laid plinths for construction of house. It is further pleaded that the government announced construction of ring road from Raya Morh to Nagrota and National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) was assigned the project for execution. The total length of road is 58.2 kilometers. The cost of the project is stated to be about Rs. 2,100/- crores. It is further pleaded that the project is being executed on an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) basis. The ring road is to pass through 56 villages, 09 tehsils, falling in two districts. The grievance sought to be raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is being asked to vacate his house though the land in question has not been acquired and no compensation has been paid to them. The petitioner has learnt that meager compensation has been offered to the land owners for their fertile land. It has further been stated in the petition that no notice was served either on the petitioner or on other residents of the village, whose land was acquired.

4. No one appeared for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, when the case was taken up for hearing, though, it is a petition challenging acquisition of land for an important infra project.

5. Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, submitted that the claim made by the petitioner that the land in question was not acquired is not tenable as notification u/s 4(1) of the J&K State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued on 16.06.2017. The same was followed by a notification u/s 6 of the Act, on 31.08.2017. As the project was of urgent nature, the Land Acquisition Collector had announced the award on 26.10.2017. He further referred to the objections filed by him wherein specific stand taken is that the amount of compensation qua the petitioner has already been assessed. Even the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,24,799/-, qua the super structure standing on the plot owned by the petitioner was also assessed. Entire amount of compensation already stands deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector, which the petitioner may withdraw after completing the formalities. The project is nearing completion.

6. He further submitted that the petitioner alongwith certain other land owners had subsequently filed writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1901/2019, in this Court, where the prayer made is that they should be paid compensation in terms of The Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the 2013 Act’). Indirectly even acquisition has also been challenged.

7. He further argued that on account of interim stay granted by this Court, the prestigious project has been put on hold, which will be a breather for Jammu City as the entire onward traffic will pass through this