Point of Law: Land acquisition – Notification - Merely because land owners had knowledge or failed to file objections would not make the notification valid if it is not published in the manner provided.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Mithal, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. A. Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition is challenging the land acquisition proceedings in respect of his land measuring 1 kanal 3 marlas covered by survey no.168 situate at Bumhama, Kupwara.

3. The aforesaid land along with some other land total measuring 5 kanals and 15 marlas was notified to be acquired for the purpose of construction of a residential quarter of Planning Department Tehsil and District Kupwara. The proposal to acquire the land under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act Samvat 1990, hereinafter to as the Act, was published on 03.03.2014 and was followed by a declaration dated 30.01.2018. In connection with the aforesaid acquisition, the award under Section 11 of the Act was pronounced on 06.03.2018 and consequently its possession was taken over on 07.03.2018.

4. The primary argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid purpose of constructing a residential quarter for Planning Department is not a public purpose and the land cannot be acquired for it. Secondly, the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was not published in the manner prescribed under law. Similarly the declaration made under Section 6 was also not properly published especially in the Gazette. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings stand vitiated in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the acquisition has been done without following the procedure prescribed under Section 5-A of the Act and in violation of Section 9(2) and 9(3) of the Act as the said notices were never served upon the petitioner. The possession of the acquired land could not have been taken without payment of 80% of the estimated compensation in accordance with Section 17-A of the Act.

5. In order to decide whether the land has been validly acquired or not the first and the foremost question which is to be considered is whether the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have been validly published and if not what is the effect of the same?

6. The petitioner in one of the paragraphs of the writ petition has clearly stated, referring to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 03.03.2014, that “the notice was also neither served nor published in the newspaper in the manner provided by Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. “In one another paragraph, referring to notification issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 30.01.2018, it has been categorically stated that ?the notification dated 30.01.2018 had not been served by the respondents on the petitioner and it has also not been published in the official Gazette…..”

7. In view of the above pleadings made by the petitioner in the writ petition, the petitioner contends that the land acquisition proceedings stand vitiated in law for want of proper publication of the notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act in the manner prescribed in law.

8. The respondents were given ample time to respond to the writ petition. In response two sets of objections have been filed basically on behalf of respondent no.4-Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, and respondent no.6-Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Kupwara.

9. The respondent no.4 in his reply accepts that on the indent of the Director General, Economics and Statistics, Jammu & Kashmir, dated 05.09.2013 land for construction of office cum residential accommodation of the District Statistics and Evaluation office and its agencies was notified to be acquired by issuing a notification dated 03.03.2014 under Section 4(1) of the Act. He also states that the compensation in respect of the said land was settled with most of the land holders in the Private Negotiation Committee but some of the land owners including the petitioner showed reluctance to accept the rate so settled. Therefore, proceedings for compulsory acquisition were