Mohd. Abdullah Chowdhary vs State Of J&K And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 515 j&K

              .HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                          AT JAMMU
CJ Court

Case: OWP No. 56 of 2017

Reserved on: 19.03.2021
Pronounced on: 27.04.2021


Mohd. Abdullah Chowdhary                                       ...Petitioner
                                 Through: Sh. O. P. Thakur, Sr. Advocate
                                          with Sh. Anoop Singh Thakur,
                                          Advocate.

                          v/s
State of J&K and others                                        .... Respondent(s)
                                 Through: Sh. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG for
                                          respondent nos. 1 and 5.
                                          Sh. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for
                                          respondent nos. 2 to 4.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE


                                    JUDGMENT

PANKAJ MITHAL-CJ

01. The petitioner through the medium of this petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the erstwhile Constitution of

the State of Jammu and Kashmir has prayed for the quashing of notifications

dated 09.03.2007 and 12.03.2009 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of

the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act ('the Act') and also the award

dated 27.09.2010 passed under Section 11 of the Act.

02. The petitioner has also challenged the communication dated 06.02.2013

by which the Collector Land Acquisition (PWD), Jammu, has intimated that

the application of the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Act has

been rejected as barred by time.

03. The petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 15.02.2014 of the

Collector Land Acquisition (PWD) refusing to make supplementary award as

was assured and stated to be made in the award dated 27.09.2010.

04. The petitioner at the same time has also sought issuance of writ of

mandamus for a direction upon the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for

acquiring the land in question after treating the earlier proceedings to be hit by

Section 11-B of the Act and to assess compensation of the petitioner's property

which includes the commercial-cum-residential building and to pay

compensation with 18% interest per annum.

05. It is pertinent to clarify at the outset that most of the provisions of the

Act are analogues and are pari materia with the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894.

06. It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner on a piece of land,

having an area of 05 Marlas and 8 sarsai of Khasra No. 341 min situated at

Gujjar Nagar, Jammu, constructed a three storied commercial-cum-residential

house, each floor having 1600 square feet of covered area with three shops

adjoining to the road. Respondent no.5- Collector Land Acquisition (PWD)

issued a notification dated 28.04.2000 under Section 4 of the Act notifying

acquisition of some land including some portion of the land, three shops and

the portion of the house of the petitioner. The said notification was followed by

a declaration dated 12.08.2003 issued under Section 6 of the Act. However, the

aforesaid acquisition proceedings lapsed by virtue of Section 11-B of the

Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act as no award was made within a

period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration.

07. The respondents thereafter initiated fresh acquisition proceedings and a

fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 09.03.2007 with the

declaration under Section 6 dated 12.03.2009. In respect of these acquisition

proceedings final award was made on 27.09.2010. The petitioner was not

satisfied by the compensation offered under the final award and, therefore,

applied for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Respondent no.5 vide letter

dated 06.02.2013 informed the petitioner that his application for reference

under Section 18 has been rejected as time barred.

08. The said final award dated 27.09.2010 categorically stated that a

supplementary award would be made regarding the assessment of the

compensation as per the latest approved rates. This was stated as the

compensation therein was offered at the old rates and the Collector had sent

request for incorporating rates which were notified with effect from

01.01.2010,

09. Simultaneously, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 06.07.2010

to handover vacant possession of the whole land and the building including the

shops. The petitioner preferred OWP No. 763 of 2010 alleging that the

possession of the building should not be taken and that it should not be

demolished as probably part of the residence or building cannot be acquired.

10. It is with these facts that the present petition for the reliefs as narrated in

the preceding paragraphs has been filed.

11. We have heard Sh. O. P. Thakur, senior counsel assisted by Sh. Anoop

Singh Thakur for the petitioner and Sh. S.S. Nanda, learned Senior Additional

Advocate General for respondent nos. 1 and 5 and Sh. Ravinder Gupta, learned

Additional Advocate General for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

12. Sh. Thakur has assailed the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act

on the ground that it was not properly published in all the modes prescribed

and that it was published in the newspaper ‗Taskeen' which had no wide

circulation in the area. It was published in English language and not in regional

language. It was not even affixed at any conspicuous place in the locality and

was not announced by beat of drums.

13. In support, he relied upon few authorities wherein it has been ruled that

it is mandatory to publish the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in

all the three modes as well as in the regional language.

14. In the objections filed by respondent no.5, it has been stated that the

notification dated 09.03.2007 was also published in the newspaper 'State

Times' dated 21.06.2009. It was also served upon the interested persons

through orderly of the office. The copy of the said notification was even sent to

the Joint Director, Information Department, Jammu for publication in three

leading newspapers but it was published in the newspaper ‗Taskeen'. A copy of

the notification was also sent to Tehsildar concerned, for publication in the

locality.

15. Section 4 of the Act provides for the publication of the preliminary

notification proposing to acquire land. It may be useful to point out that upon

publication of such notification, ordinarily, the persons interested are called

upon to file their objections against the proposal and it is after consideration of

the said objections, if the government so decides, a final declaration under

Section 6 of the Act is made to acquire the land unless filing of objections are

dispensed with by invoking the urgency clause.

16. The aforesaid provision clearly stipulates that the Collector shall notify

the notification through a public notice to be affixed at convenient places in the

locality, shall also cause it to be known by beat of drums and local panchayats

and patwaries and by publication in two daily newspapers having largest

circulation in the said locality of which at least one shall be in the regional

language.

17. The relevant part of the aforesaid Section 4 of the Act is reproduced herein below:

"4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.--

(1) Whenever land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose the Collector shall notify it--

(a) through a public notice to be affixed at convenient places in the said locality and shall also cause it to be known by beat of drum and through the local Panchayats and Patwaries;

(b) in two daily newspapers having largest circulation in the said locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language.‖

18. A reading of the aforesaid provision would reveal that the legislature has

used the word 'shall' for the manner of publication of the notification.

Therefore, the publication of the notification through affixation at a convenient

place in the locality, by beat of drums and two daily newspapers having largest

circulation of which one at least should be of the regional language, is

mandatory and sine qua non for proceedings ahead with the acquisition

proceedings.

19. The petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition

that notification was only published in newspaper ‗Taskeen'. It was in English

language. It was not affixed at any convenient place in the locality nor was

proclaimed by beat of drums.

20. The respondents in response to the above contention have only stated

that the notification was published in the newspaper ‗State Times' dated

21.06.2009 and the newspaper ‗Taskeen'. It was served upon the interested

persons through orderly of the office and that it was sent for publication to the

Joint Director, Information Department but falls short of saying whether in

pursuance thereof it was actually published in the two newspapers including

that of the regional language.

21. No one has brought on record copies of the newspapers in which the

notification was alleged to have been published or any other material to show

that the Joint Director, Information Department, to whom it was sent for

publication had actually published it in the newspapers as required. There is no

material on record whatsoever that the notification was pasted in some

conspicuous place of the locality or that it was proclaimed by beat of drums.

Mere sending it for the purposes of publication and proclamation would not

suffice the purpose to mean that it was actually so published and proclaimed.

22. A glance at the final award also reveals that copies of the notifications

were sent to the Manager, Government press; Deputy Director Information for

publication in local newspapers/government gazette; to Tehsildar Jammu for

publicity in the locality concerned through Patwari and that the notification

was got published in the local newspaper dated 11.03.2007 ‗Daily Taskeen'.

The above material on record reveals that admittedly the notification was

published on 11.03.2007 in the daily newspaper ‗Taskeen'. The court can take

a judicial notice of the fact that the aforesaid newspaper is an Urdu newspaper

but as accepted by the petitioner, the notification contained therein was in

English language. Therefore, the notification was published in an Urdu

newspaper but in the English language. There is no material on record to show

that the notification was also published in a regional language or that the

aforesaid newspaper was having the largest circulation in locality.

23. This apart, there is no material on record to substantiate that the

aforesaid notification was also published in the newspaper dated 21.06.2009

‗State Times'. A copy of the said newspaper has not been brought on record by

the respondents and, therefore, the allegations in this regard appear to be

completely vague and bald.

24. The respondents have also failed to demonstrate as to how and in what

manner and by whom and on which date the copy of the said notification was

affixed in some conspicuous place of the locality or it was announced by beat

of drums except by stating that it was sent to the Information Department and

to the Tehsildar/Patwari for the purpose. There is no proof that the aforesaid

notification was ever published in a newspaper of regional language or that any

newspaper wherein it was published was of largest circulation in the locality.

25. It is well established that if an assertion categorically made is not denied,

it will be deemed to be accepted and the matter would not be a point in issue or

dispute. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the

notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was only published in one

newspaper ‗Taskeen' of Urdu and was not published in any other newspaper

nor was pasted at any place in the locality or was announced by beat of drums.

It was not published in a newspaper of regional language.

26. It is also well recognised that if a thing is required to be done by the

statute in a particular way, it has to be done in the manner so provided or not at

all.

27. Nazir Ahmad versus Emperor(No.2), (1936) 38 BOMLR 987, highlights

the doctrine as applied in Taylor versus Taylor (1875) 1 Ch. D. 426, 431 that

where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be

done in that way or not at all as other methods of performance are necessarily

forbidden meaning thereby that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act

has to be published in the manners prescribed and not otherwise.

28. In The Madhya Pradesh Housing Board versus Mohd. Shafi, 1992(2)

SCC 168, the larger Bench of Supreme Court held that if the notification under

Section 4(1) of the Act is not issued in accordance with law or is defective and

does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it not only vitiates the

notification, but also renders all subsequent proceedings connected with the

acquisition to be bad.

29. In The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, CMDA versus J.

Sivaprakasan and others, 2011 (1) SCC 330, the Supreme Court inter alia

opined that if there is failure to publish the notification in two daily newspapers

or if the publication is in two newspapers that have no circulation at all in the

locality, the notification and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be

vitiated for the non-compliance of the essential condition of Section 4(1) of the

Act.

30. The Supreme Court in J&K Housing Board and another versus

Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul and others, (2011) 10 SCC 714 in considering

the provisions of Section 4 of the Act itself held that the expression 'collector

shall notify' occurring in Section 4(1) makes it clear that three requirements of

modes of notice are mandatory and has to be strictly complied with as when a

statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, the

said thing must be done in the manner prescribed only. The fact that the parties

concerned were aware of the acquisition proceedings or there is service of

individual notices makes no difference.

31. In State of Haryana and another versus Raghubir Dayal, 1995 SCC(1)

133, it has been held that requirement of publication of the substance of the

notification in the locality under Section 4(1) of the Act is mandatory.

32. In Bansi Lal Bhat versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others,

2012(4) J.K.J. 272, a Division Bench of this court while considering the

requirements of Section 4 of the Act laid down that the publication of the

notification in official gazette, in two local daily newspapers, one of which

shall be in regional language and publication of the substance of the newspaper

in the locality are mandatory and, if any of them is not fulfilled, the acquisition

would be improper and liable to be quashed.

33. In view of the aforesaid mandatory provisions, its non-compliance

vitiates the notification and the entire land acquisition proceedings subsequent

thereto.

34. It is not the case of the respondents that non-publication or non-service

of the notification upon the interested person or the petitioner had not caused

any prejudice to him so as to enable this court to exercise its extra ordinary

discretionary jurisdiction.

35. Section 5-A empowers the person interested in land notified for

acquisition under Section 4 of the Act to file objections to the proposed

acquisition. This is a valuable right which has been conferred upon the person

interested as 'right to property' is not only a constitutional right but has been

recognised as akin to a fundamental right and more importantly as a basic

human right. So, any action which impinges upon this right is violative of the

right of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 300 A of the

Constitution. The very act of non-publication of the notification issued under

Section 4 of the Act in the proper manner and all the modes deprives the

petitioner of the right to object to the acquisition and visits him with civil

consequences.

36. There is no material on record which may establish that the urgency

provisions were invoked and the provisions of Section 5-A were dispensed

with rather perusal of the award reveals that several persons interested had filed

objections and the same were considered before making the final declaration

under Section 6 of the Act or the award meaning thereby that the urgency

provisions were not invoked and at the same time, petitioner's valuable right to

object to the acquisition was taken away without the authority of law.

37. The right to file objections is a vested right of the persons interested and

it cannot be taken away otherwise than by following the procedure prescribed

in law inasmuch as it affects one of the most valuable right of the person, i.e.,

the right to property which is not only a constitutional right under Article 300A

of the Constitution but has been repeatedly recognised by the law courts to be

akin to a fundamental right and above all a human right. Thus, when such

valuable right is likely to be visited adversely, it is but natural to follow the

principle of natural justice for which purpose Section 5 A of the Act provides

for filing the objections and hearing upon it. The said right of the petitioner has

certainly been infringed by not publishing the notification issued under Section

4 of the Act as per the mandate of the statute.

38. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that where such a right is being

violated, it would not cause prejudice to the person concerned or take away the

power of the court to interfere with to stop miscarriage of justice.

39. The second submission of Sh. Thakur is that as the award dated

27.09.2010 passed under Section 11 of the Act promises to make a further

award subsequently, which till date has not been passed, therefore, the

proceedings of acquisition have lapsed under Section 11- B of the Act.

40. The above argument has been noted but is apparently devoid of merit.

41. There is no issue that the final award pursuant to the above proceedings

has been made on 27.09.2010 by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act.

The said award is the conclusive proof of the fact that the land has been

acquired, to the area of the acquired land, the compensation payable to the

tenure holders and how it has to be apportioned.

42. There is no provision for the revision of the said award or even for

making any supplementary award except for correction of clerical or

arithmetical error.

43. In view of the above, there is no gain saying that since supplementary

award has not been pronounced as is indicated in the final award, the said

award is not a final one and that the non-passing of the supplementary award

within time provided would vitiate the same.

44. Section 11 B of the Act lays down the limitation of two years from the

date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act for making the

award. It provides that if the Collector fails to make an award under Section 11

of the Act within a period of two years from the date of declaration, the entire

proceedings of acquisition would lapse.

45. In the case at hand, the aforesaid provision of Section 11-B does not

come into play at all as admittedly final award under Section 11 of the Act was

made by the Collector on 17.09.2010 well within a period of two years from

the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act which happens to be

12.03.2009.

46. The petitioner next argued that the award dated 27.09.2010 is not

sustainable in law as the requisite procedure for passing the same was not

followed by the Collector and the petitioner has not been awarded proper

compensation particularly in respect of the structures.

47. The award is a conclusive proof of the area of the acquired land and the

compensation payable in regard thereto. In case any person interested in the

compensation is aggrieved by the award so made, he has the remedy of seeking

a reference under Section 18 of the Act with regard to the measurement and the

quantum of compensation but he cannot challenge the award in any other

forum muchless by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court.

48. The submission of Sh. Thakur that apart from the challenge to the

quantum of compensation, the petitioner is also aggrieved by the manner in

which the award has been made and since it has been made in contravention of

certain directions of the authorities, it is void.

49. This aspect of the matter may require little consideration as sub-section

(5) of Section 11 of the Act do provide that an award made in contravention of

the directions of the Revenue Minister or an officer specially empowered by

him in this behalf with respect to value of the land, shall be void.

50. The petitioner submits that the compensation offered was assessed on

the basis of the rates of the land prevailing in the year 2005 completely

ignoring the rates notified by the Government on 06.02.2010. The petitioner

had represented in this regard to the Chief Minister and the matter was referred

to Collector as well as Deputy Commissioner. The Chief Engineer Public

Words Department (R&B) after receiving the revised rates vide letter

04.06.2010 conveyed for the assessment of compensation as per the new rates.

The matter was discussed and the Collector was directed to submit the proposal

regarding incorporation of the revised rates and to assess the amount for

structures. The said instructions have not been followed for revising the award.

51. The aforesaid facts reveals that no directions regarding the value of the

land was issued by the Revenue Minister or an officer specially empowered by

him to direct the Collector to make an award in a particular fashion. It is also

clear from the objections that the proposal for revising the rates of the award

was never approved by the higher authorities, therefore, the Collector could not

revise or issue the supplementary award. Therefore, the provisions of sub-

section (5) of Section 11 of the Act would not be attracted. Moreover, it is clear

from the objections that the final award has been implemented fully and most

of the persons interested have received the compensation not only of the land

but of the structures as well. The petitioner has also accepted the full and final

compensation of ₹ 8,61,664/- and ₹1,55,000/- for the left over items of his

structure, total amount of ₹ 10,16,664/- and as such is debarred from assailing

the award on any ground.

52. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the argument that the

award is not in accordance with the law and is void, is misconceived and is

rejected.

53. Sh. Thakur in the end submitted that the application of the petitioner

seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancing the compensation

could not have been rejected by the authorities and the order to that effect, if

any, as communicated to the petitioner, is without jurisdiction.

54. The pleadings of the parties are virtually silent on the above aspect

except for stating that a communication has been sent informing rejection of

the application seeking reference and, thus, making a prayer for quashing of

the same.

55. Section 18 of the Act provides as under:

"18. Reference to Court (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.‖ (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made,--

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector 's award;

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.‖

56. The aforesaid provision requires an application in writing to be made to

the Collector by the person interested who has not accepted the award for

reference to the court for the purposes of determination of the objection with

regard to the measurement of land, the amount of compensation, the persons to

whom it is payable or to the apportionment of the compensation amongst the

persons interested. Therefore, on an application in writing by the person

interested who has not accepted the award or in other words has received

compensation under protest are the two pre-requisites for seeking a reference.

In addition, the proviso lays down that the limitation or the time period within

which such an application has to be moved. The Collector not being a judicial

authority rather the agent of government is simply empowered to forward the

application to the court provided the application fulfils the above criteria, i.e., it

is in writing by the person interested who has not accepted the award or has

accepted it but under protest and is in time. He, however, lacks the power to

decide the application on merits or even the fulfilment of conditions for making

the reference if there is any dispute on facts not borne out from the record and

for which evidence is required in which case he has to refer the matter to court

with his report on all particulars as are required under Section 19 of the Act.

57. In the present case, we are not aware to the material available before the

Collector for rejecting the application as time barred. It may be on the basis of

facts verifiable from the record or otherwise. The order of rejection has not

been placed before us by any of the parties. We thus, do not have the advantage

of knowing the reasoning or the basis of forming an opinion that the

application is barred by time.

58. In the absence of proper pleadings as to the order refusing to refer the

matter under Section 18 of the Act to the court, we desist in commenting on the

validity of such an order only on the basis of communication.

59. This takes us to the last aspect of the matter where the petitioner

demands reassessment of compensation of the entire commercial-cum-

residential building on the plea that in view of Section 47, part of the house or

the building is not liable to acquisition.

60. Section 47 of the Act in substance provides that the provisions of the Act

shall not be enforced for the purpose of acquiring a part of any building if the

owner desires that the whole of it shall be so acquired subject to the owner in

writings withdrawing or modifying his expressed desire for the acquisition of

the whole building at any time before Collector has made the award. In other

words, as the desire for acquisition of the whole building can be withdrawn or

modified before the making of the award same has to be expressed or conveyed

to the authorities before passing of the award under Section 11 of the Act.

61. The petitioner alleges that he had submitted a representation in this

regard to the Chief Minister on 10.05.2010 and specifically pleaded that his

entire building should be acquired and the copies of the said representations

were sent to the other respondents also but even then the award fails to include

the compensation for the whole of his building.

62. The award was made on 27.09.2010. It is totally a factual matter as to

when the petitioner explicitly conveyed his desire for the acquisition of the

whole building to the Collector. The representation is not addressed to the

Collector. It is not clear whether the copies were received by the Collector or

any other competent authority. Moreover, in case compensation for the entire

building has not been awarded, the petitioner can agitate about it in reference

under Section 18 of the Act by producing necessary evidence to establish that

he has expressed his desire for acquisition of the whole of it prior to the

declaration of award under Section 11 of the Act.

63. In view of the above discussion, the notification dated 09.03.2007 issued

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is certainly in violation of the

statutory provision and the entire acquisition proceedings consequent to it

would be bad but for the involvement of the public interest.

64. Admittedly, the acquisition of the land is for the public purpose,

namely, for widening of the road from Denis Gate (Swami Viveka Nand

Chowk to DC Office) in Village Jammu Khas, Tehsil and District Jammu. The

possession of the land has been taken over and the road has been constructed

after the petitioner has received the total amount of compensation of

₹10,16,664/-. The said construction of road is of great public importance and

the individual interest cannot be permitted to override larger public interest.

Therefore, even though we have held that the notification issued under Section

4 of the Act was not published in conformity with the provisions of the Act, we

do not wish to nullify the acquisition as a whole.

65. The Apex Court in 'the Authorized Officer, Thanjavur and another

versus S. Naganatha Ayyar and others', 1979 (3) SCC 466, observed that

procedural irregularities in acquiring the land in the absence of malafidies

needs to be overlooked. The development of infrastructure should not be

hampered and that scope of judicial review in such matters of land acquisition

ought to be very limited and the court must focus its attention more on social

and economic justice and should not exercise a lethal blow on the entire

acquisition proceedings.

66. In 'Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited versus Alok Kotahwala and

others', 2013 0 AIR (CC) 754 , it has been opined that projects of national

importance such as Metro Rail cannot be put on halt or stand still on technical

grounds like ecological balance and the courts have to weigh public interest

vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising its discretionary powers. Even if

the High Court finds that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-

compliance of some legal requirement, instead of quashing the acquisition

proceedings, the person interested may be compensated by awarding lumpsum

damages in addition to the compensation admissible to him in law.

67. In 'Ramnikhal N. Butta and another versus State of Maharashtra and

others', AIR 1997 SC 1236, it has been observed that such power of the High

Court under Article 226 is discretionary. It should be exercised in furtherance

of interest of justice and not merely on making out of legal points. It was also

observed that the High Court may devise ways and methods to adequately

compensate the person interested instead of quashing the acquisition

proceedings in its entirety.

68. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced

herein below:

―The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. Ant in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lumpsum or appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interest. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings.‖

69. In the present case, land was notified for acquisition on 09.03.2007 and

the possession of the land was taken over. In fact, the land had also been

utilized for the construction of the road and at the same time, the petitioner has

also received the compensation. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, even though we have found that the notification under Section 4 of the

Act was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, we do not intend to

quash the same and instead provide that ends of justice would be sub-served if

the petitioner is provided by way of damages additional compensation which

may be worked out as on the date of this judgment in accordance with the

provisions of the Act by making a fresh award in respect of the land of the

petitioner only within a period of three months and to pay the compensation

accordingly after adjusting the amount already paid within a further period of

one month and keeping it open for the petitioner to avail the remedies available

to him in law for seeking enhancement, if necessary.

70. The writ petition is allowed as above in part with no order as to costs.

                       (SINDHU SHARMA)                      (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                 JUDGE                       CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
27.04.2021
Sunita.



                                    Whether the order is speaking?          Yes
                                    Whether the order is reportable?        Yes