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

2024 Supreme(J&K) 283

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
SINDHU SHARMA, J.
Chaman Kumar & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K Through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu & Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 2602 of 2023
Decided on : 05-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.K.S. Thakur; Anandita Rattan Thakur; Neha Abrol
For the Respondent: Monika Kohli; R.K. Gupta; Sunny Mahajan

Public interest prevails over private rights in land acquisition, and procedural delays do not invalidate acquisition proceedings.

Headnote:(A) J&K State Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 - Section 4(1) and Section 11(b) - Land acquisition for public purpose - Petitioners challenged the acquisition of land for truck parking, claiming it was not in public interest - Court emphasized that public interest prevails over private interest in land acquisition matters - Fresh award for compensation was mandated by a prior judgment, which was not complied with in time, but the court ruled that the delay did not invalidate the acquisition proceedings. (Paras 1, 4, 20, 23)

(B) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that the power under Article 226 is discretionary and should balance public interest against private rights, especially in land acquisition cases. (Paras 15, 17)

(C) Compensation - The court held that the petitioners could seek additional compensation if dissatisfied with the fresh award, but the acquisition process itself was upheld. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to quash the land acquisition for truck parking, claiming it violated their rights and was not in public interest. They argued that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance with a previous court order mandating a fresh award.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay in passing the fresh award did not invalidate the acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the importance of public interest in such matters.

Issues: The main issues included whether the delay in passing the award resulted in lapsing the acquisition proceedings and the balance of public versus private interest in land acquisition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that public interest must prevail in land acquisition cases, and procedural delays do not necessarily invalidate the acquisition process.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGEMENT

1. Petitioners seek quashing of final award bearing No. ACR/LA/NHAI/F-Award/T.Parking/2017-18/325-31, dated 10.07.2017, to the extent of land measuring 3 Kanals 8 Marlas comprising of Khasra No. 134-min situated at Village Jhajjar Kotli, which is owned and possessed by them. A further prayer is sought for quashing of Notification No. LA/ACR/ NHAI/ Jhajjar Kotli/2016-17/88-95, dated 30.04.2016, issued by respondent No. 5 under Section 4(1) of the J&K State Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby, the above-mentioned land of the petitioners has been notified at the instance of respondent No. 6 for truck parking adjoining to National Highway.

2. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, placed an indent with the Collector Land Acquisition, (Assistant Collector, Revenue), Jammu, vide letter dated 06.01.2016 for acquisition of land measuring approximately 2 hectares, for the construction of wayside amenities (Truck Parking) along the National Highway in Village Jhajjar Kotli, Tehsil Dansal, District Jammu. After completing all necessary documentation, a notification under Section 4(1) was issued to invite objections from interested persons, along with its publication in newspaper. No objections were filed by the interested persons within the prescribed period. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings concluded with the issuance of an award dated 10.07.2017, amounting to Rs. 2,32,45,900/-

3. The petitioners filed a writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 1469/2020 titled 'Chaman Kumar and others vs. UT of J&K and others', seeking quashing of notification dated 30.04.2016, issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and also award dated 10.07.2017. They also sought setting aside of notices dated 07.02.2020 and 18.02.2020, directing them to remove shops and structures possessed by them. This writ petition was considered and dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 28.12.2020 by holding as under:

    "If seen in the light of enunciation of Law as referred to above, the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court as larger public interest has to be given preference over the private interest in the matter of acquisition of land for development of infrastructural projects."

4. The petitioners, aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, filed an appeal, i.e., LPA No. 157/2020, which was partly allowed and disposed of on 27.04.2021 by holding as under:

    "44. Thus, applying the above principles of law laid down by the Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of the case, even though we have found that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, we do not intend to quash the same and instead provide that ends of justice would be sub-served if the appellants are provided by way of damages additional compensation which may be worked out as on the date of this judgment in accordance with the provisions of the Act by making a fresh award in respect of the land of the appellants only within a period of three months and to pay the compensation accordingly after adjusting the amount already paid within a further period of one month and keeping it open for the appellants to avail the remedies available to them in law for seeking enhancement, if necessary."

5. The contention of the petitioners is that pursuant to the judgment dated 27.04.2021, a fresh award was to be passed within a period of three months, and compensation was to be paid to the petitioners. The respondents, however, failed to comply with the directions and passed the award within the prescribed time, which has resulted in setting aside of the entire proceedings. In fact, respondent No. 6 issued a notice for removal of unauthorized construction to the petitioners under sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, calling upon them to remove the unauthorized occupation and construction within a p

    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