AHMED DIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners on the analogy of inhabitants of village Plander, Kote, Lah and Khablan and Town Thanamandai for acquisition of land for four laning of the road. It is further prayed that the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 (for short 'the 1990 Act') be considered without raising the issue of limitation and the land for widening of the road be acquired from both sides of the existing road from the center of the road instead of one side.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are owners to the extent of about 100 kanals of land in the area. Notification under Section 4(1) of the 1990 Act was issued for acquisition of the land for widening of road on 16.10.2019. As at that time, the Jammu and Kashmir was in transitional phase, the petitioners did not come to know about the notification issued. They could not file objections under Section 5- A of the 1990 Act in time. However, immediately when they came to know about the process of acquisition of land, objections were filed on 23.06.2020. However, the same were rejected vide order dated 24.06.2020 as time barred, without affording opportunity of being heard.

(3.) The argument is that if the land on both sides of the road is acquired from the centre of the existing road for widening thereof, the same will save number of properties already constructed alongside the road. Similar objections filed by the Inhabitants of Plander, Kote, Lah and Khablan and Town Thanamandai, were accepted and road was re-aligned. The petitioners otherwise are not against the acquisition of the land. The delay in filing the objections should not come in the way of the petitioners for the reason that they did not come to know about the acquisition because of difficult situation at that time. They had not been issued any notices.