Order puts question mark on similar acquisitions across J&K
Nishikant Khajuria
JAMMU, Aug 19: In a significant order, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today quashed the notifications issued by Deputy Commissioner Ramban for acquisition of land and also nullified all the subsequent proceedings for the acquisition undertaken by the respondents in terms of Section 6 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act.
The High Court order has raised a question mark on validity of all such land acquisitions by the Government across Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory.
While disposing of a petition by Gul Mohd and others challenging the Public Notices and proceedings initiated by the Government for acquisition of the land situated at village Khari (Seeram), Tehsil Banihal in district Ramban, Justice Nargal quashed the impugned notification No. 84/ADC/Rbn of 2011-12 dated 20-10-2011 issued by Collector Land Acquisition under section 4 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act as well as Notification/Declaration No. 25/DCR of 2011 dated 26.11.2011, issued by DC Ramban under section 6 and public notice No. 94/ADC/Rbn of 2011-12 dated 30-11-2011 issued by respondent No. 4 under Section 9 and 9A of the J&K Land Acquisition Act.
“As a necessary corollary, all the subsequent proceedings for acquisition undertaken by the respondents are also declared non-est in the eye of law, and therefore quashed,” he further ordered, adding that the quashment of acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1990 by the Court shall not come in the way of the respondents to acquire the subject land, if the same is needed for the public purpose by following strictly the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which is in vogue.
The petitioners had submitted that the respondents, while issuing the impugned notifications under Section 4 of the Act of 1990 did not follow the procedure as envisaged under the Act with particular reference to Section 6.
After hearing the arguments of the counsels for the petitioners and the respondents, Justice Nargal observed that Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of a particular district has not been delegated with the power to make a declaration under Section 6 of J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990, which is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purpose.
Further, he added, the satisfaction in terms of Section 6 of the Act of 1990 is required to be recorded by the Government and not by the Deputy Commissioner that a particular land is needed for public purpose as envisaged under Section 6 of the Act of 1990.
“Even otherwise also, the issue with respect to the recording of the satisfaction and the issuance of the notification under Section 6 is no more res integra in light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in OWP No. 1329/2012 titled, Virender Pandoh vs State of J&K and others,” Justice Nargal said while quoting relevant paras, according to which the satisfaction recorded by the Deputy Commissioner in the light of SRO 235 is no satisfaction on the part of the Government.
Section 6 of Act of 1990 makes it clear that that when the Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for the public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of the Revenue Officer or some other officer duly authorized in this behalf and the said declaration shall be published in the official gazette. Sub Section (1) of Section 6 envisages two essential requirements namely (i) recording of the satisfaction of the Government that the land is needed for the public purpose; and (ii) publication of such declaration under the signature of the Revenue Minister or by some other Officer duly authorized in this behalf.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
