The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed the final land acquisition award passed for the construction of an amusement park in Village Abdal (Nai Basti), Tehsil Suchetgarh, District Jammu, citing non-compliance with the mandatory publication requirements under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (Svt.).
Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the judgment in WP(C) No. 1361/2023, filed by Rattan Chand and six others, who challenged the award dated 24.04.2019 issued by the Collector Land Acquisition, R.S. Pura. The petitioners contended that they and their predecessors had been in peaceful cultivating possession of the land for over 70 years and were not served any of the required notices during the acquisition process.
Background
The acquisition process was initiated based on an indent dated 21.09.2016 from the Director, Tourism Department, Jammu. A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the State Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.12.2016. The petitioners claimed they were never served notices under Sections 4, 5, 5-A, 6, 9, or 9-A, nor was the notification published in the Government Gazette or in any regional-language newspaper.
Petitioners’ Contentions
The petitioners argued that the acquisition proceedings were conducted in violation of the mandatory provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act. They emphasized that the notice under Section 4(1) was not properly published, thereby depriving them of their statutory right to object under Section 5-A. They further asserted that the award was passed ex parte without affording them a hearing.
Respondents’ Reply
Respondent No. 5 – the Collector – contended that the petitioners were merely tenants and not in possession of the land, which had already been taken over for the park’s construction. The Collector also pointed to a communication from J&K Dharmarth Trust, which claimed ownership and consented to the acquisition and compensation. The respondents maintained that the acquisition process followed all required procedures.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the mandatory requirements under Section 4(1) of the State Land Acquisition Act, which requires public notification to be made:
- By affixing notices at convenient places;
- Through beat of drums and local Panchayats/Patwaries;
- In the Government Gazette;
- In two daily newspapers, including one in the regional language.
The Court noted that the notification had only been published in the Daily Excelsior, an English-language newspaper, and found no evidence of publication in a regional-language newspaper or in the Government Gazette. Additionally, there was no report of dissemination through local Panchayats, Patwaries, or by beat of drum.
Quoting the Supreme Court in J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul and Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reaffirmed that:
“The procedure prescribed for publication of notice under Section 4 of the State land Acquisition Act as contained in the said provision is mandatory and all the modes for publication mentioned therein are to be followed. But, in the instant case the record does not suggest that excepting publication of the notice in one newspaper of English language, the other modes of publication have been followed by the respondent-Collector. On this ground alone, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.”
The Court also observed that the petitioners were listed as tenants in the apportionment statement attached to the award, confirming their status as “interested persons” entitled to notice and a hearing under Section 5-A. Their right to object was effectively denied, as no objections had been filed or considered.
Decision
Holding that the “mandatory provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act have been observed by the Collector in breach,” the Court quashed the impugned award and the entire acquisition proceedings.
The High Court directed the respondents to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to conclude the same within six months. If the land is no longer required, possession is to be restored to the recorded occupiers.
Case Title: Rattan Chand & Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 1361/2023
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
