JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Mithal, J.

The three petitioners are brothers and have preferred this writ petition for the quashing of the notification dated 12.04.2008 issued under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); quashing of the notification dated 28.07.2010 issued under Sections 6 & 7 of the Act; quashing of the notices dated 29.07.2010 issued under Sections 9 and 9A of the Act; and for the quashing of the final award dated 27.07.2011 passed under Section 11 of the Act. A further prayer has been made that the respondents be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from their land/house.

2. The petitioners claim ownership and possession of 18 marlas of land of Khasra No. 459 situated in Mouza Birshalla Tehsil and District Doda.

3. It is stated that out of the aforesaid 18 marlas of land, 10 marlas of land is a vacant piece of land whereas on the remaining 8 marlas, two houses of the petitioners exist.

4. It is alleged that on the request of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Special Sub-Division Doda-respondent No. 5 dated 12.04.2008, the Collector Land Acquisition, Doda-respondent No. 4 issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act notifying to acquire 01 kanal and 4 ¼ marlas of the land in the village which included three marlas of the land of the petitioners. The said notification was, however, not published in the manner prescribed in law. It was never affixed at convenient places in the locality or was not caused to be known to the people by beat of drums or through local Panchayat /Patwaris.

5. The petitioners were not provided with hearing on objections as contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act so as to oppose the proposal to acquire the land. The notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act was made known to the petitioners only on 24.08.2008 and the petitioners immediately within four days filed their objections to the proposed acquisition before the Collector. The objections were within time from the date of service /knowledge of the notification.

6. The petitioners, in the objections, apart from other things, alleged that the proposal to acquire the aforesaid land for the purposes of link road is not justified. The said link road is not needed by the residents of the place and that there is no demand for such a link road as in the vicinity there is already double sided highway available. The proposal to acquire the said land for construction of road is mischievous and is not for a bonafide public purpose, rather it is for the benefit of one individual.

7. The petitioners further allege that they were not given any opportunity of hearing on the aforesaid objections and straight away without recording of the satisfaction of the State Government, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. The award incorrectly states that objections to the proposal to acquire the land were not filed whereas in fact, pursuance to the notification dated 12.04.2008 which was served upon the petitioners on 24.08.2008, they had filed objections within four days which were not considered and placed before the State Government. The aforesaid acquisition is otherwise also bad in law as it has been undertaken at the instance of the brother-in-law of the local MLA, who would be the sole beneficiary of the above acquisition/construction of the link road.

8. A response to the writ petition has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stating that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was widely circulated but objections were not filed by anyone within the stipulated time. In the absence of the objections, the competent authority prepared a report and submitted it to the prescribed authority for issuing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner empowered by the Government to issue the declaration under Section 6 of the Act rightly issued the same and, thereafter, the proceedings for acquisition ended with the passing of the award