Serial No. 107 and 109

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 589/2020 (O&M),

WP(C) No. 1089/2020 (O&M),

WP(C) No. 1190/2020 (O&M) &

WP(C) No. 1237/2020 (O&M)

(Through Video Conferencing)

DATE OF DECISION : 29.12.2020

Bishan Dass and others …Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. O.P. Thakur, Advocate

in WP(C) 589, 1089/2020

Mr. Ved Raj Wazir, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Abhishek Wazir, Advocate

in WP(C) No. 1190, 1237/2020

v/s

Union Territory of J&K and others ….Respondent(s)

Through: Ms. Seema Shekhar, Sr. AAG

for Govt. of J&K

Mr. Asheesh Singh Kotwal, Advocate

for NHIDCL

Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

ORDER

1.

This order will dispose of five writ petitions involving challenge to

acquisition of land vide same notification.

WP(C) No. 1237/2020

2.

The petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of

the notification dated 30.11.2018, issued u/s 4 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act

2 WP(C) No. 589/2020

& 3 connected petitions

(for short >the Act?) and notification dated 14.05.2019, issued u/s 6 thereof and

the award dated 09.09.2019, announced by the Land Acquisition Collector.

3.

It is claimed by the petitioner that he is owner to the extent of 8

kanals of land forming part of khasra No. 135 min, out of which 2 kanals and

15 marlas of land was acquired but at the spot, possession of 3 kanals and 10

marlas of land was taken. As per the notification, the purpose of acquisition is

widening of Jammu-Akhnoor road. In the statement accompanying the award

showing the names of the persons who are entitled to compensation, name of

Rajinder Singh has been mentioned at serial No. 1. He is shown to be owner in

possession of the acquired land whereas he had expired way back on

12.05.2007. Death certificate has been placed on record. In the revenue record,

ownership of the land was changed in favour of his legal heirs for which

mutation was also entered on 05.09.2002. To challenge the acquisition, the

arguments raised is that a dead person cannot be issued any notice if in the

record of the Land Acquisition Collector deceased Rajinder Singh was the

owner. It was further submitted that as per Section 17-A of the Act, before

taking the possession, 80% of the compensation was to be paid. In the case in

hand, there was no question of payment of compensation to Rajinder Singh,

whose name has been shown in the apportionment statement annexed with the

award of the collector.

4.

In addition, argument raised in OWP No. 1190/2020 is that one of

the land occupant therein namely Sansar Chand had expired on 18.04.1997 and

mutation had also been entered. However, still his name has been shown in the

apportionment statement annexed with the award of the collector.

5.

He further submitted that even the notification issued under section

4 of the Act is also liable to be set aside for the reason that the same was

3 WP(C) No. 589/2020

& 3 connected petitions

published only in two English newspapers, which did not have circulation in the

area. Notification was not published in any newspaper in regional language.

6.

On account of non-compliance of the provisions of section 4, 6 and

9 of the Act, the acquisition deserves to be quashed. In support of the

arguments, reliance was placed on Bansi Lal Bhat vs. State of J&K and ors.,

[2012 (4) JKJ 272]. He admitted that road is being constructed at the spot now.