Abdul Razaq Bhat v. NONE

Mr. Bodh Raj Sharma, Advocate VERSUS

1.UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR, Through Commissioner Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, J&K Government Civil Secretariat Jammu.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Ramban.

3. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION Railway Ramban District Ramban 2 WP(C) 638 of 2022

4. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE Gool.

5. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, Northen Railway, Udhampur …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sagira Jaffar, Assisting Counsel to Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 04.03.2025

1. Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged Award dated 16.05.2011 passed by the respondent No. 3-Collector Land Acquisition as also Notifications issued under Sections 4, 6,9, & 9A of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, (SVT) 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Act’), pursuant whereto the impugned award dated 16.05.2011 has been passed. The petitioners have also sought a direction upon the respondents to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land measuring 25 Kanal 8 Marlas belonging to them under Right to Fair Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2013(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013').

2. The petitioners claim that they are owners in possession of land measuring 25 Kanal 8 Marlas falling under Khasra No. 20 min, 36 min, 33 min & 109 mn situated at Village Bandhan Tehsil Gool District Ramban. According to the petitioners a Notification under Section 4(1) of the State Act was issued for acquisition of the aforesaid land on 01.05.2008. It is stated that no objections were invited from the interested persons as the said Notification was not published in any local news paper, thus the award passed pursuant to the said Notification is not sustainable in law. According to the petitioners the mandate 3 WP(C) 638 of 2022 of law as required under Section 4 of the State Act has not been followed by the respondents by giving publicity to the said Notification in accordance with the said provisions.

3. The other contention of the petitioners is that because the respondents have passed the tentative award on 16.05.2011 and thereafter they have not passed any final award, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Section 11(B) of the State Act which mandates passing of an final award within two years from the date of the issuance of the declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the State Act, the proceedings have lapsed.

4. The respondents have contested the instant petition by filing their reply, wherein it has been submitted that the Deputy Chief Engineer S&C-III Northern Railway Udhampur had submitted an indent vide his letter dated 17.02.2006 for acquisition of land measuring 25K-08M for construction of ‘Sangaldan-Kanthan Bye Pass Road’ in Village Bandan Tehsil & District Ramban. It has been submitted that land for the said purpose was identified, where after Notification under Section 4(1) of the State Act was issued on 01.05.2008 calling objections with regard to the proposed acquisition. It has been further submitted that the case was submitted to Deputy Commissioner, Ramban for issuance of Notification under Section 6 & 7 of the State Act and on 23.03.2010 Notification under Section 6 of the State Act was issued. According to the respondents, Notification under Section 9 & 9A of the State Act was issued on 31.03.2010, where after draft award was issued on 12.05.2010. According to the respondents, the final award came to be issued on 16.05.2011. Thus, the respondents claim that final award has been issued within the stipulated time of two years from the date of issuance of declaration under Section 6 and 7 of the State Act. It has been further submitted that land owners have received 100% compensation and 4 WP(C) 638 of 2022 possession has already been taken over by the indenting department more than a decade ago.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

6. A perusal of the record would show that Notification under Section 4(1) of the State Act was issued on 01.05.2008 and corrigendum to the said Notification was issued on 25.10.2008. Record further shows that on 26.05.2008 one of the petitioners, namely, Abdul Hamid Bhat has filed his objections to the said Notification. Even petitioner-Bashir Ahmed Bhat has also filed his objections to the said Notification. Record further shows that the said Notification was given wide publicity by the respondents, thus, it cannot be said that the respondents have not followed the mandate of Section 4 of the State Act.

7. The petitioners claim that the respondents have only passed a tentative award and the final award is yet to be passed. It seems that the petitioners are labouring under a misconception, because the respondents have taken a definite stand in their reply that tentative award was issued on 12.05.2010 and the final award was issued on 16.05.2011. Record produced by the respondents confirms this fact.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is hardly any difference between the tentative award and the final award and he has further contended that the respondent-Collector has made an overwriting in the date mentioned in the tentative award to make it appear as final award.

9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is without any substance as the tentative award has been made by the respondent- Collector on 12.05.2010 and the respondent-Collector while make the said award has submitted the case in original to the Deputy Commissioner for 5 WP(C) 638 of 2022 consideration and approval. It seems that after approval of the tentative award the final award has been issued by the respondent-Collector on 16.05.2011. Merely because tentative award has been accepted by the competent authority without any modification does not make the final award doubtful.

10. As already stated the declaration under Section 6 of the State Act in the present case was issued on 26.02.2010, thereafter the final award has been issued by the respondent-Collector on 16.05.2011 within the stipulated period of two years from the date of issuance of declaration, as such, provisions of Section 11(B) of the State Act are not attracted to the present case.

11. Apart from the above, the record produced by the respondents clearly shows that petitioners have received the entire compensation from the respondents in terms of the final award and possession of the acquired land has already been taken over by the intending department more than a decade back. Thus, it is not open to the petitioners to turn around and challenge the acquisition proceedings and the award at this stage after more than a decade of passing of the award by the Collector.

12. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition, as such, the same is dismissed.

13. Original Record be returned back to the learned counsel for the respondents. JAMMU 04.03.2025 Bir (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Whether order is reportable: Yes/No