BALKRISHAN DUTTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir calls in question two notifications being Notification No. LA/105 -9 dated 22 -4 -1966 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called "the Act") and Notification No. RD -2 of 1967, dated 5 -1 -1967 issued under Section 17 of the Act dispensing with the application of Section 5 -A of the Act and authorising the Collector to take possession of the land under that section of the Act. The total land covered by the first mentioned notification measured 657 kanals situate in the two villages of Paloura and Top Sherkhania of Tehsil Jammu, and belonged to various persons. The petitioner owned only 32 kanals and 10 marlas comprising Khasra No. 1183 of village Paloura. The public purpose necessitating the acquisition mentioned in the notification was the building of Jani Pura Housing Colony. The application of Section 5 -A of the Act was dispensed with and the Collector authorized to take action under Section 17 of the Act due to the urgency involved in the acquisition.

(2.) THE petition was originally filed on 16 -11 -1970. Subsequently leave was sought to amend the petition. On the leave being granted the amended petition was filed on 13 -4 -1971. In the amended petition the challenge to the aforementioned notifications was founded on the following grounds: -

(3.) IN the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated that land measuring 657 kanals comprehensively described in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was needed for a public purpose viz., for construction of JaniPura Colony; that due to paucity of funds only a portion of the land could be utilized for the purpose; that the development of the colony had to be undertaken in a phased manner therefore the land belonging to the petitioner was also included in the notification under Section 4 of the Act and that the urgency for acquisition was felt to avoid haphazard and indiscriminate growth of the area by private land owners. According to the respondents even though the possession of the land was not taken over formally till March 1971, yet the possession must be deemed to have passed on the State on the expiry of the period of 15 days from the date of notice under Section 9 of the Act. Regarding the validity of the notification under Section 4 it has been stated that the notification was properly issued and validly served in the manner provided in Section 4 itself. It has further been contended that the existence of urgency of the public purpose is not subject to judicial review and therefore the court had, no jurisdiction to go into the question of the existence of the purpose of acquisition and the urgency necessitating taking over the possession of the land under Section 17 of the Act. Laches have also been pleaded as a ground for defeating the petition.