U.T of Jammu and Kashmir v. Through its Commissioner/ Secretary to Govt. of J&K, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat

Mr. Irfaan Khan, Advocate …Petitioner (s)

1. U.T of Jammu and Kashmir, VERSUS 2 WP(C) 1996/2023 Through its Commissioner/ Secretary to Govt. of J&K, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.

2. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Jammu.

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramban.

5. The Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Ramban. (The then Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban).

6. The Collector Land Acquisition (SDM), Banihal.

7. The Executive EngineerRamban.PWD (R&B) Division Ramban …Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 03.03.2025

Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged Notification bearing No. Acq/Gen/373-83 dated 06.07.2012 issued by respondent No. 5 under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, (SVT) 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Act’) in respect of land measuring 26 Kanals 13 Marlas situated at Village Ashar, Tehsil Banihal District Ramban. Challenge has also been thrown to the Notification dated 30.10.2012 issued under Section 6 of the State Act, Notification dated

16.11.2012 issued under Sections 9 & 9-A of the State Act, tentative award dated 29.10.2013 and the final award dated 01.06.2023 made in respect of the aforesaid land. 3 WP(C) 1996/2023

The main ground urged for challenging the impugned notifications and the awards is that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of the provisions contained under Section 11(B) of the State Act as the final award has not been made within the stipulated time of two years of issuance of notification regarding declaration under Section 6 of the State Act.

The respondents in their reply have admitted the factual position that the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 06.07.2012, where after Notification under Section 6 of the State Act was issued on 30.10.2012, Notification under Sections 9 and 9-A was issued on 17.11.2012, tentative award was made on

29.10.2013 and the final award was made on 01.06.2023. It has however, been claimed that the petitioners have received compensation that was assessed in their favour without any protest and as such, they cannot turn around and challenge the final award.

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

Section 11(B) of the State Act which is at the center of the controversy reads as under:-

11-B. Period within which an award shall be made.–– The Collector shall make an award under section 11within a 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 State Land the commencement of Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.

The explanation to the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the period of two years has to be computed after excluding the period during which the proceedings have been stayed by any order of the Court. 4 WP(C) 1996/2023

So far as the facts relating to the acquisition proceedings are concerned, the same are not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that the declaration under Section 6 of the State Act was issued on 30.10.2012 and the final award came to be passed on 01.06.2023. In the present case, it is not even urged by the respondents that there was any stay of proceedings, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to exclusion of any time in computing the period within which the award in the instant case was to be made. The award has admittedly, been made way beyond the stipulated time of two years from the date of issuance of declaration. Therefore, provisions of Section 11(B) of the State Act are attracted to the present case with full force.

Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr.AAG appearing for the respondents has contended that the petitioners have already received the compensation in terms of the impugned award and, therefore, they are estopped from challenging the same. In this regard it is to be noted that in the present case the petitioners have admitted that they have received only 30-40% of the compensation that was assessed under the impugned award. This position is not being disputed by the respondents. In fact from the reply filed by the respondents, it appears that even intending department has not deposited whole of the amount of compensation assessed under the impugned award. The respondents have placed on record a communication which clearly shows that only an amount of ₹ 35 lac out of total assessed compensation of ₹ 82,23,586/- has been disbursed to the land owners, meaning thereby that less than 50% of the compensation has been disbursed to the land owners.

Therefore, even if it is assumed that respondents have taken over the possession of land in question by taking recourse to urgency clause as contained 5 WP(C) 1996/2023 under Section 17 of the State Act, which is not even case of the respondents, still then they have not fulfilled the conditions regarding payment of 80% of the compensation to the land owners as contained under Section 17A of the State Act. Thus, the action of the respondents cannot be saved even, if we take it as a case of acquisition under Section 17 of the State Act.

For all what has been discussed above, it is clear that the impugned final award dated 01.06.2023 has been passed way beyond the statutory period of two years from the date of issuance of declaration. The acquisition proceedings have, therefore, lapsed which makes the final award passed by the respondent No. 5- Collector to the extent of the petitioners unsustainable in law.