SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(JK) 499

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR …
c/w RFA no.09/2023 Reserved on: 19.07.2024 Pronounced on: 27.09.2024 Abdul Salam Dar aged 78 years S/o Ghulam Rasool Dar R/o Brakpora Tehsil & District Anantnag, Kashmir …….Appellant(s)
Through: Mr Khan Sameer, Advocate Versus
1. Union Territory of J&K through Commr/Secy to Govt. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Sgr/Jmu
2. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag
3. National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited through General Manager, NHIDCL Project Management Unit near JAKFED Anantnag ……Respondent(s)
Through: Mr Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA Mr Faheem Nisar Shah, GA CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE 

Timely filing of applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is crucial; failure to do so without valid reasons results in dismissal of appeals.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Section 18 - Appeals against dismissal of reference petitions - The Trial Court dismissed the petitions as time barred, noting the appellants' failure to provide valid reasons for delay in filing applications for reference. The court emphasized the necessity of timely action in land acquisition matters. (Paras 2, 4, 10)

(B) Limitation - The court highlighted that the appellants were aware of the award and had received compensation under protest, yet failed to file their application for reference within the stipulated time frame, thus justifying the dismissal of their appeals. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from a common judgment dismissing reference petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, where the appellants claimed ignorance of the law and procedural lapses by the respondents in the acquisition process. (Paras 2, 4)

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's dismissal of the reference petitions was upheld, as the appellants did not provide sufficient justification for the delay in filing their applications. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: The main issues included whether the appellants' applications were time barred and whether the Trial Court erred in not framing an issue regarding the limitation. (Paras 4, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellants had knowledge of the award and failed to act within the prescribed time limits, thus the Trial Court's dismissal was justified. (Paras 10, 11)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. These two appeals have arisen out of common judgement dated 19th September 2022. Let me first take up appeal, being RFA 10/2023.

RFA no.10/2023

2. This Civil First Appeal under Section 52 of the Land Acquisition Act is directed against the Award dated 19th September 2022, passed by Principal District Judge, Anantnag (for short “Trial Court”) on File Nos. 1/Reference and 2/Reference, by which reference petitions made by Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag, under Section 18 have been dismissed on the ground of being time barred and for setting-aside the same.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

4. The grounds of challenge, inter alia, are that impugned award is bad in the eye of law; that Trial Court has not framed any issue regarding claim of appellants being time barred; that at the time of approaching Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag, appellant filed application for condonation of delay; that appellant could not approach Collector within time as he was having no knowledge about Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act; that since no award has been framed in the matter by Collector, as such, appellant could not approach Collector within time but this aspect of the matter has been observed in breach by Trial Court; that due to domestic problems, appellant could not approach Collector within time; that appellant being illiterate was having no knowledge that application had to be filed within six months, but this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court while passing impugned award; that respondents are meant to respect and implement the law and comply with the same and safeguard common law rights and constitutional rights of the person; that no notice under Section 4(1) has been issued by respondents; that there has been no publication through beat of drum or through local panchayat and Patwari; that notice has not been published in any newspaper; that publication through Government Gazette also seems to have been ignored; that no opportunity of being heard has been provided to landholder/appellant in terms of section 5(a) of Land Acquisition Act; that there does not seem to be any report prepared by Collector in terms of Section 5(A) for submission to the Government for taking the decision with regard to acquisition of land; that declaration required to be made under Section 6 and further directions to Collector to take further action has been issued by Financial Commissioner in terms of SRO 177, by which powers have been vested in him to issue declaration under Section 6 and 7 of the Act; that declaration under Section 6 has not been issued by respondents; that Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act provides power to Government to direct Collector in case of urgency to take possession of land needed for public purpose on expiration of 15 days from publication of notice mentioned in Section 9(1) of the Act; that appellants were deprives of right of hearing under Section 5-A without dispensation of such hearing as provided under the last proviso to Section 17 of the Act.

5. From perusal of file, it is evident that land measuring 43 Kanals 08 Marlas came under acquisition for alignment of Anantnag Simthan Kishtwar Road. Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was made on 18th July 2005 read with corrigendum dated 24th August 2011, calling objections from interested persons, which, on receipts, were disposed of and the case was recommended for issuance of declaration under Section 6&7 of Land Acquisition Act. Notification under Section 9 and 9A was issued. None are said to have filed objections within stipulated period of time. Private Negotiation Committee (PNC) was held by Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, on 17th January 2007. Land measuring 02 Kanals 14 Marlas under Sruvey no.477 min belonging to Abdul Salam Dar S/o Ghulam rasool Dar R/o Brakpora, Anantnag, situate at Brakpora, Anantnag, also came under alignment of Anantnag-Simthan Kishtwar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top