The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed in view of the proviso appended to Section 11-B of the Act, and the respondents were directed to initiate fresh proceedings under the Act of 2013.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. This intra-Court Appeal filed by the appellant [‘the writ petitioner’] under clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment 08.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [‘the Writ Court’] in OWP No. 697/2012 titled Satpal Gupta vs. State and Others.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, appellant herein, we deem it appropriate to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to filing of this appeal.

3. Land measuring 125 kanals, 13 marlas situate in village Narwal Bala, Tehsil and District Jammu was acquired by the respondents for public purpose, namely construction of 2nd Grid Station. A requisition was made by the Chief Executive Officer, JDA vide his Communication No. JDA/DDM/Mic.82/141.42 dated 04.05.1977. The Collector Land Acquisition (PWD) Jammu issued a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act Svt.1990 [‘the Act’] on 24.05.1977 which was published in the Government Gazette on 09.06.1977. Since no objections to the acquisition of the land under Section 5-A of the Act were received from the interested persons, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the Government vide No. RD/130 of 1977 which was communicated to the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD) Jammu by the Revenue Department vide its communication dated 23.08.1977. The Collector Land Acquisition was also directed by the Government to take orders of the acquisition under Section 7 of the Act and also to proceed under Section 17 of the Act after expiry of period of notice issued under Section 9 of the Act.

4. It seems that the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD), Jammu assessed the tentative compensation and paid/deposited 75% of the tentatively assessed compensation and simultaneously took over the possession in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Act.

5. It may be pertinent to mention here that the land, which was sought to be acquired by the respondents included the land measuring 5 kanal, 6 marla falling in khasra No. 286/12 min and 1 kanal, 09 marla falling in khasra No. 287/12 min belonging to the writ petitioner.

6. The writ petitioner approached the Writ Court by way of OWP No. 413/1983 and sought quashment of the acquisition proceedings set in motion by the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD) Jammu. The writ petition was disposed by the Writ Court vide its judgment dated 21.10.1992. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

“It is, revealed from the record that in exercise of the powers under Section 17 of the Act, the respondents have already taken possession of the land. Section 17 provides that in case of urgency, whenever the Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of 15 days, from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) take possession of the land needed for public purpose which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumberances. I am not inclined to disturb the possession of the land which has been validly taken in accordance with the provisions of law as incorporated in Section 17 of the Act.

Under the circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have been quashed to the extent as indicated hereinabove and the respondents shall issue fresh notices to the petitioners for the purposes of validly acquiring the land. After the issuance of the notices, the compensation shall be determined on the basis of the objections filed and the provisions of law applicable in the case. The petitioner shall not, however, disturb the possession to the respondents. The acquisition proceedings shall be initiated within a period of one month and concluded as early as possible.”

7. It is, thus, evident that vide judgment dated 21.10.1992, the entire acquisition proceedings qua the writ petitioner were quashed. However, the possession