JUDGMENT

Rahul Bharti, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material on record.

2. The facts of the present case invites on all fours the doctrine of acquiescence that when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right while the act is in progress and after violation is completed then that conduct reflects his assent or accord which cannot allow him afterwards to complain. In this case, the petitioner being fully conscious of land acquisition award dated 15.01.2014 qua his land specific comes forward with the present writ petition filed on 05.02.2014 opting to challenge only section 4 original notification dated 30th March, 2010 bearing with the presence of the final award but still opts not to amend his writ petition all along is bound to suffer the application of acquiescence against him.

3. If the petitioner's plea for grant of the reliefs sought in the present writ petition is to be accepted, then the same would be at the cost of putting the clock back to the year 2005 and by undoing the entire process for acquisition of the land for four laning of the National Highway IA from Banihal to Srinagar which cam