BASHIR AHMAD BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material on record.

(2.) The facts of the present case invites on all fours the doctrine of acquiescence that when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right while the act is in progress and after violation is completed then that conduct reflects his assent or accord which cannot allow him afterwards to complain. In this case, the petitioner being fully conscious of land acquisition award dtd. 15/1/2014 qua his land specific comes forward with the present writ petition filed on 5/2/2014 opting to challenge only sec. 4 original notification dtd. 30/3/2010 bearing with the presence of the final award but still opts not to amend his writ petition all along is bound to suffer the application of acquiescence against him.

(3.) If the petitioner's plea for grant of the reliefs sought in the present writ petition is to be accepted, then the same would be at the cost of putting the clock back to the year 2005 and by undoing the entire process for acquisition of the land for four laning of the National Highway IA from Banihal to Srinagar which came to be put into exercise and even the four laning has come to be carried out at the time when this matter got heard by this Court for final adjudication. Thus, this Court may not be in a position to serve the said wish of the petitioner, particularly, when the petitioner himself has been privy by design and default to the course of events relating to acquisition of his 1.9 Kanals of land falling in Khasra No. 752 min village Chursoo, Tehsil Awantipora, district Pulwama, and has acquiesced, both by commission and omission, with the course of events without ever bothering to question the same at the appropriate point of time, even if the same were seeming to the be so offending to his rights qua the property in reference.