HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

ATJAMMU

CJ Court

Reserved on 05.08.2021

Pronounced on: 23.12.2021

Case: OWP No. 1634 of 2016

Sh. Sheikh Reyaz Hamid & Others ….. Petitioner(s)

Through :- Sh. R.K.S.Thakur, Advocate

v/s

State of J&K and Others

.....Respondent(s)

Through :- Sh. S.S.Nanda, Sr. AAG for respondent

Nos. 1 to 5

Sh. Vipan Gandotra, Advocate for

respondent No. 6

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

PANKAJ MITHAL, CJ:

01.

Heard Sh. R.K.S.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sh. S.S.Nanda, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for

respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sh. Vipan Gandotra, learned counsel for the

respondent No. 6.

02.

The petitioners are 38 in numbers. All of them are aggrieved by

the acquisition of their land measuring about 49 kanals and 17 marlas

situate in village Devgole Tehsil Banihal District Ramban which has

been notified for acquisition for the four lanning of the National

Highway.

03.

The petitioners have thus invoked the extra-ordinary writ

jurisdiction of this Court seeking for quashing of the following:-

2

OWP No. 1634 of 2016

(i)

Notification dated 2^nd June 2008 issued under Section

4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act Samvat 1990

(hereinafter referred to as 8the Act9);

(ii)

Notification dated 21^st December 2009 issued Section

6 of the Act;

(iii) Public Notice dated 9^th January 2010 issued under

Sections 9 and 9-A of the Act;

(iv)

Tentative award dated 24^th February 2010;

(v)

Notification dated 17^th October 2011 issued under

Section 17 of the Act ; and

(vi)

The final award dated 5^th November 2016 passed

under Section 11 of the Act.

04.

The basic ground on which the above prayers have been made is

that the entire proceedings of acquisition are bad in law and have lapsed

by virtue of Section 11-B of the Act inasmuch as no final award was

made within a statutory period of two years from the date of the

declaration made under Section 6 of the Act.

05.

The defence is that since the urgency provision of Section 17 was

invoked and the possession of the land was taken over, the land had

vested in the State, in which circumstance Section 11-B of the Act

would have no application.

06.

It may be important to note that the provisions of the Act are pari

materia with the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The provisions of Section

11-B of the Act are equivalent to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition

Act., 1894.

07.

Section 11-B of the Act which is relevant for our purpose in this

case, is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“[11-B. Period within which an award shall be made.- The

Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a

3

OWP No. 1634 of 2016

period, of two years from the date of the publication of the

declaration and if no award is made within that period, the

entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse:

Provided that in case where the said declaration has

been published before the commencement of the State Land

Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997, the award shall be made

within a period of two years from such commencement.”

08.

The aforesaid provision mandates that the Collector shall make

an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of

publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and in case no

award is made within the stipulated period, the entire proceedings for

acquisition shall lapse. This is subject to an exception carved out by the

Act where the land vests in the State consequent to invocation of

urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act. Thus, in view of the

aforesaid provision and the exception, we have to see if the proceedings

of the acquisition have lapsed by v