ROMESH KUMAR Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal arises from OWP NO. 1/1998. The appellants, who were writ petitioners, preferred writ petition for quashing Award no. 2266 -70 dated 9.10.1976 with respect to land of khasra no. 683/221 at Mouza Talwara, Tehsil Reasi within District Udhampur, and for other consequential reliefs. The petition was disposed of with certain directions. Not satisfied, they have come in appeal.

(2.) THE case of the appellants is that on 9.10.1975 notification under section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquisition of 1430 kanals and one marla of land for developing Talwara Colony in connection with Salal Hydro Electric Project. The notification was challenged by one Ramu, father of appellant nos. 1 to 7 and husband of appellant no. 8, by writ petition registered as writ petition no. 181/1977, in this Court. During pendency of the case Ramu died and the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 2.12.1988. In the meantime, on the death of Ramu, the appellants took steps for mutation in their names and mutation was attested by the revenue authorities under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act vide mutation No. 488/86 on 15.9.1986. The appellants filed writ petition for quashing the award, which was disposed of with some observations and directions on 12.11.1998 giving rise to this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge accepted the stand of the State that subsequent acquisition of right in the land in question does not confer any right to personal notice on the person concerned. The learned Judge however took the view that prescribed procedure had not been followed as required under Section 4 of the Act, but considering that a large chunk of land measuring over 1430 canals was subject matter of acquisition out of which the claim of the appellants was confined to only about 29 kanals of land, he held that it would not be appropriate to quash the notification under section 4; instead, the proper course would be to postpone the deemed date of publication under section 4(1) by three years so that the respondents could determine the market value of the land as on the date of filing of the writ petition and refix the compensation. The learned Judge gave such direction following a decision of the apex court in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v Raj Kumar Johri, AIR 1992 SC 1538.