Mandatory adherence to publication and hearing requirements under the Land Acquisition Act is essential for valid acquisition; however, where public infrastructure is already built, courts may mold the relief by directing fresh compensation assessment under the original Act rather than quashing the entire proceeding.

JUDGMENT

(Oswal-J)

1. The land of the respondents measuring 9 Kanals 4 Marlas comprising Survey Nos. 258, 258/1, 258/2, 259 and 593/267 situated at village Batapora, Tehsil and District Shopian was acquired by the appellants in terms of award dated 28.08.2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The respondents filed a writ petition bearing OWP No. 779/2007 for quashing the proceedings for compulsory acquisition of their land initiated by the appellant No. 4 under the provisions of the Act and for quashing the communication dated 13.08.2007, whereby the respondents were notified that the final award would be pronounced on 28.08.2007 and were directed to appear before the appellant No. 4.

3. The respondents, in their writ petition, claimed that the mandate of Section 4 of the Act was not followed by the appellants, as the notification was not published in two daily newspapers having larger circulation in the locality, particularly in Jammu where they were residing after migration and even the said notification was not served upon them. It was also stated that when they came to know about the notification unofficially through certain residents of Batapora, they filed objections with the appellant No. 4 to the proposed acquisition of their land, wherein it was asserted that there was no justification to acquire the particular piece of land belonging to the respondents being members of the minority community, having migrated from the valley and sufficient other land was also available in the locality for acquisition for the purpose of construction of ITI Complex. It was also contended that the appellant No. 4 was under obligation to not only consider the objections filed by the respondents, but also to hear them in person and after considering the objections filed by them only, appellant No. 4 could have formed an opinion and recommended the case to the Government for consideration. Appellant No. 4, without considering the objections and without making any enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act and without hearing the respondents in person, recommended the case to the appellant No. 1 for declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The appellant No. 1 issued the declaration under Section 6 of the Act that the land was required for public purpose, however, the said declaration was neither published in the official gazette nor brought to the notice of the respondents, who had migrated to Jammu. The respondents also complained the non-compliance of Section 9 of the Act that despite the fact, that they had provided their latest addresses to the appellant No. 4 while submitting objections to the notice under Section 4 of the Act, neither the statutory requirement contemplated under Section 9 was followed nor any notice was served upon them.

4. Finally, appellant No. 4 issued the communication dated 13.08.2007, intimating the respondents that the award would be announced on 27.08.2007 and they were directed to attend the office. It is only after receipt of the said notice that the respondents filed the writ petition as mentioned above.

5. The appellants objected to the writ petition by asserting that the appellant No. 3 had placed an indent dated 16.06.2004 with the appellant No. 4 for acquisition of land for construction of ITI Complex, Shopian. Notification dated 01.07.2007 was issued by the appellant No. 4 under Section 4(1) of the Act. The appellant admitted the status of the respondents as migrants. It was stated that the respondents had the information and knowledge of the notification dated 01.07.2004 and even the objections