Mandatory compliance with notification procedures in land acquisition is essential; failure to do so invalidates the acquisition process.

JUDGMENT :

01. The petitioners through the medium of present petition have challenged the final award bearing No. SDMR/LA/Amuse-Park/2019-20/325-26 dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Collector Land Acquisition, R.S Pura, Jammu (respondent No. 5) by virtue of which land measuring 134 kanals and 11 marlas falling under khasra Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 21 situated at Village Abdal (Nai Basti) Tehsil Suchetgarh, District Jammu has been acquired for construction of Amusement Park.

02. According to the petitioners, they and before them their predecessors in interest have been in uninterrupted peaceful cultivating possession/occupation of the aforesaid land for the last more than 70 years, and, this fact is recorded in the revenue record. It has been contended that respondent No. 5 has, without following the mandatory procedure as laid down in Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 Svt., {hereinafter to be referred as “State Land Acquisition Act”} acquired the land in question without hearing the petitioners. It has been submitted that pursuant to indent dated 21.09.2016 placed by Director Tourism, Jammu for acquisition of the land in question for the purpose of construction of Amusement Park, respondent No. 5 issued notification bearing No. SDMR/LA/Amusement- Park/2016-17/253-57 dated 15.12.2016 in terms of Section 4(1) of the State Land Acquisition Act inviting objections with regard to acquisition of the land in question. According to the petitioners, neither notification under Section 4(1) of the State Land Acquisition Act nor notifications under Sections 5 and 5-A as also under Sections 9 and 9-A of the State Land Acquisition were served upon the petitioners. It has also been claimed that even notification bearing No. 338-Rev. (LAJ) of 2017-dated 16.08.2017, under Sections 6 and 7 of the State Land Acquisition Act has not been published in the Government Gazette.

03. According to the petitioners, the impugned award dated 24.04.2019 came to be passed by respondent No. 5 in ex-parte without hearing the petitioners despite the fact that the petitioners were the interested persons likely to be affected by the acquisition process. In short, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have not adhered to the mandatory procedure for service of notifications under Sections 4(1), 5, 5-A, 6, 9 and 9-A of the State Land Acquisition Act. On this ground, it is being contended that the impugned award and the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question are liable to be quashed.

04. Respondent No. 5-Collector has filed his reply to the writ petition in which it has been contended that the petitioners, as per the revenue record, are tenants of the land in question. It has been submitted that the land in question is not in physical possession of the petitioners. It has also been contended that possession of the land in question has been taken over by the respondents and construction work of the park has been completed. It has been further contended that the owner of the land J&K Dharmarth Trust Council has claimed that it is the owner in possession of the land in question and sought release of the compensation in its favour and has also sought a direction that amount of compensation be not released in favour of any other person. It has been submitted that on account of this dispute the compensation amount has not been transferred in the account of respondent No. 5 as a result of which, the said respondent is not in a position to disburse the said compensation in favour of the beneficiaries.

05. The respondents have contended that the impugned award has been passed after following the due procedure prescribed under the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act. It has been claimed that there is a dispute between J&K Dharmarth Trust Council and the petitioners/tenants as both the parties are making their separate claims over the land in question. To lend support to the contention that procedure prescribed under