GHULAM MOHAMMAD RAH Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, have implored for the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts, under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed and as are stated in the petition, are that the petitioners owned land measuring 10 kanals 03 marlas falling under Khasra Nos.321/65, 67 and 68 situated at Nunwan, Pahalgam, which land came to be acquired by Pahalgam Development Authority (for short "the Authority") through Collector Land Acquisition/ACR, Anantnag, respondent 8 herein, and though an award came to be passed by the respondent 8 herein on 15/5/1982, yet the same was passed at the back of the petitioners without their knowledge and without any notice to them as was required to be issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (1934 AD) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1990") and that the moment the said award came into the notice of the petitioners and other land owners whose land was acquired, they approached the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, respondent 6 herein, for grant of alternate land instead of monetary compensation as provided under Sec. 32 of the Act of 1990, in that, similar other landholders having been provided such alternate land.

(3.) Reply to the petition in the shape of para-wise reply has been filed by the respondents wherein it is being admitted that the land of the petitioners and other land holders was acquired after following due process of law and in furtherance thereof the petitioners were called upon to appear personally or through authorized agents for filing their objections, interest in the said land and the amount and particulars of their claim to compensation and that the objections submitted thereof were duly considered and disposed of. It is further stated that the application referred in the petition claimed to have been submitted by the petitioners through their counsel on 27/10/2017 remained pending before the respondents only on account of pendency of the previous litigation between the petitioners and the respondents herein and that the said application dtd. 27/10/2017, a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1990 had been sought and the said application came to be disposed of in terms of order dtd. 1/7/2023 and that the petitioners have been seeking reference under Sec. 18 qua the award passed on 15/5/1982 beyond the stipulated period provided under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1990 and, as such, the said application was rejected as being time barred and that since the petitioners failed to seek making of reference under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1990 within the stipulated period, the petitioners cannot now seek any relief from this Court in this regard and that in terms of judgment and order dtd. 4/10/2017 passed in OWP No.632/2015, the respondents were duty bound to release the compensation in favour of the petitioners as per the directions passed therein and that even thereafter the petitioners were called upon number of times to attend the office, either personally or through authorized agents for receiving compensation and that despite having received notices by some of the petitioners, the petitioners did not attend the office of the respondents for receiving compensation.