Mandatory requirements of notice under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act must be strictly followed to validate acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition, have challenged the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 4-Collector Land Acquisition, Shopian for acquisition of land measuring 9 kanals 4 marlas falling under khasra Nos. 258, 258/1, 258/2, 259 and 593/267 situated at village Batapora Tehsil and District Shopian.

2. As per case of the petitioners, they were owners in possession of the aforesaid land. Respondent No. 4 is stated to have issued a notification under Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘State Act’) on -3- OWP No. 779/2007

01.07.2004. It has been submitted that the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid notification unofficially as the same had not been published in newspapers having circulation in Jammu where the petitioners were residing at the relevant time on account of their migration from Valley.

3. The petitioners are stated to have addressed their objections to respondent No. 4, contending therein that there was no justification for acquisition of the land in question when the policy of the Government was to bring the migrants back to valley to settle them over there. It was stated by the petitioners in their objections that they had no other property in Kashmir valley for their settlement.

4. It has been submitted that respondent No. 4, without considering the objections filed by the petitioners and without making any enquiry in terms of Section 5-A of the State Act, recommended the case to respondent No. 1 for issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the State Act. It has been alleged that the declaration under Section 6 of the State Act has never been published in any official gazette nor the same has been brought to the notice of the petitioners by any means whatsoever. It has also been contended that notice under Sections 9 -4- OWP No. 779/2007 and 9-A of the State Act was also not served upon the petitioners.

5. It has been submitted that a communication dated

13.08.2007 came to be issued by respondent No. 4, through the medium of which, the petitioners were informed that final award was going to be announced on 28.08.2007 and the petitioners were asked to attend the office of respondent No. 4.

6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned acquisition proceedings on the grounds that notification under Section 4 of the State Act has not been published in the manner as provided under the said Act and that the petitioners, who had migrated to Jammu, were not served with the said notice. It has been further contended that when the petitioners came to know about it unofficially, they filed their objections but the same were not considered by the official respondent No. 4. Even the declaration under Section 6 of the State Act has not been published in the manner as required under law.

7. Respondent No. 4, in its reply to the writ petition, has submitted that respondent No. 3 had raised an indent dated 16.06.2004 with it for acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners for construction of ITI complex at Shopian. Accordingly, notification under -5- OWP No. 779/2007 Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 01.07.2004. It has been submitted that admittedly the petitioners had the information about the aforesaid notification and they filed their objections, which were duly received by respondent No. 4 on 10.08.2004. It has been further submitted that the notification under Section 4 of the State Act was sent to Girdawar/Patwari who were directed to give publicity by beat of drums and by pasting of copies of notification. It has been submitted that the notification was published in Daily Subah-e- Kashmir dated 09.07.2004 and Daily Srinagar News dated 24.04.2004. A copy of the notification was also sent to Relief Commissioner, Migrants, Jammu for inf