The mandatory nature of Section 11-B of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, and the consequences of failing to make the award within the prescribed time period.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sh. R.D. Singh Bandral, Sh. S.S. Nanda and Sh. Ravinder Gupta learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court for quashing of notification dated 08.10.2012 issued under Section 6/7 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the consequential notices issued under Section 9 and 9-A thereof and pray that the acquisition proceedings be started afresh, if necessary so as to acquire the land in question.

3. The petitioners allege that about 130 kanals and 4.5 marlas of land was notified for proposed acquisition under Section 4 of the Act for the construction of Mavalkote-Suranda to Thetharka Road in Village Thetherka, Tehsil Gool District Ramban. It was followed by a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act dated 18.10.2012. Thereafter, a tentative award was prepared on 13-06-2013 in respect of the above acquisition but till date no final award as contemplated vide Section 11 of the Act has been pronounced.

4. The respondents have filed objections to the writ petition admitting that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 08.10.2012 and that a tentative award was given but the final award could not be made for want of funds as the same were not made available by the intending department.

5. The argument is that the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed for want of award as no award was declared within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.

6. Sh. Nanda, Senior Additional Advocate General has pointed out to the tentative award where it has been stated that the papers were submitted to the Divisional Commissioner Jammu for issuance of the notification under Section 6, 7 and 17 of the Act and, thus, contends that as the provisions of Section 17 of the Act were invoked, Section 11-B would not be applicable and the proceedings would not lapse.

7. The contention that the papers were submitted to the Divisional Commissioner Jammu for issuance of notification under Sections 6, 7 and 17 of the Act is not conclusive proof of the fact that in effect notification was issued under Section 17 of the Act and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with.

8. The respondents have not placed on record any material to demonstrate or establish that a notification under Section 17 of the Act was issued and the enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with.

9. It is not a case of the respondents that the land acquisition proceedings or the making of the award was stayed by any order of the court.

10. Sh. Nanda submits that most of the land-owners have accepted compensation and that compensation as per the tentative award has been distributed.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners accepts that as per the tentative award 80% of the compensation has been received by some of the petitioners.

12. The payment and receipt of 80% of the compensation would not dilute the rigor of the statutory provisions, i.e., Section 11-B of the Act which mandates for the making of the award within a period of two years from the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and further provides that if such declaration is not made within the time, the entire acquisition proceedings would lapse.

13. Section 11-B of the Act clearly lays down that the Collector shall make the award under Section 11 of the Act within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within the said time period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse.

14. In the case at hand, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 08.10.2012 and it is admitted on record that till date final award under Section 11 has not been made despite the period of 2 years having lapsed long back. There is no dispute to the legal proposition that the provisions of Section 11-B are mandatory in nature.

15. The submission that Secti