DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COLLECTOR , Land Acquisition (Assistant Commissioner Revenue), Jammu (for short, the Collector) issued Notification No. 06 of 1988 dated 29.08.1988 under section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (for short, the Act) proposing acquisition of a big chunk of land situate at villages, Kartholi, Meen Sarkar and Birpur for a public purpose, namely, development and expansion of Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana, Jammu. On the recommendation of the Collector, Government issued declaration vide Notification No. 335 -RD of 1989 under section 6 of the Act on 21.09.1989. Final award was passed by the Collector on 08.04.1999, whereby 1912 kanals 07 marlas of land has been acquired. The acquired land includes 2 kanals 19 marlas of land belonging to the petitioner bearing khasra No. 478 situate at village, Kartholi. A supplementary award bearing No. LA/ACR/final/2001 dated 19.04.2001 was also passed but it is not stated in the pleadings of the petitioner or the Collector as to whether that has any relevance to the award dated 08.04.1999 qua the land belonging to the petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir seeking inter alia a writ declaring acquisition proceedings and the awards as non est and nullity in the eyes of law. Petitioner has also sought mandamus commanding respondent No. 4 to restrain respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from encroaching upon and grabbing or interfering in any manner with the aforementioned land belonging to the petitioner.

(3.) CASE set up by the petitioner is that 'entire proceedings which were taken by the relevant time were in fact not notified as per the mandate of law.' Petitioner or any of his co -sharers, who are in actual possession of the land, were never given any compensation of their land nor possession on spot was taken over either by the indenting department or by the Collector. Petitioner continues in peaceful possession of the said land even after 12 years of the acquisition. The acquisition proceedings had become nullity because of afflux of time by the conduct of respondent No. 3 (Indenting department) in neither taking possession of the said land nor paying any compensation in lieu of the acquired land.