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
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
Authorised Officer, Thanjavur & Anr. Versus S. Naganatha Ayyar
Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.
AI
Public interest prevails over private rights in land acquisition, and procedural delays do not invalidate acquisition proceedings.
Acquisition of Land - Grant of damages - Notification under Section 4 of the Act was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act.
Acquisition of Land - Compensation - It is settled that the forum of writ petition is not as a matter of right or an appellate forum but is an extra ordinary remedy provided to check miscarriage of j....
If there is failure to publish notification in two daily newspapers, notification and consequential proceedings for acquiring land would stand vitiated for non-compliance of essential conditions of S....
The court emphasized that challenging the acquisition proceeding through a writ petition, even with a delay of few months, is fatal and cannot be entertained. The court also highlighted the principle....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that land acquisition proceedings can be challenged after the passing of the award and receipt of compensation in exceptional cases falling within ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.