Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Shanker Singh vs State And Ors on 29 October, 2021
Sr. No. 6
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
OWP No. 622/2012
IA No. 851/2012
Shanker Singh .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: None
Vs
State and Ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
29.10.2021
(OPEN COURT)
Per: Thakur-J
01. This is a petition in which the petitioner challenges the award dated
23.03.2010 in regard to land measuring 1 kanal 15 marls under Khasra No.
211/18 min, which has been acquired by the official respondents. The ground
taken is that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner under Section 4 of the
J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 nor notices were issued under Section 9 and
9-A much less served upon the petitioner.
02. It was also stated that the amount as per the award has been deposited
with the bank account of the petitioner without his consent. It was thus urged
that the acquisition proceedings were without any basis, as no notice was ever
issued to the petitioner, therefore, the proceedings are non-est in the eyes of law.
It needs to be noticed that the award was passed as early as on 23.03.2010,
whereas the writ petition was filed on 26.04.2012.
03. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Industrial
Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC
482, the Apex Court in paragraph 29 held as under:-
"29. It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing
the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition
proceedings have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash
the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the
notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But
it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic
consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken,
the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award
which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before
exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party
rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference.
The Division Bench of High Court was not right in interfering with
the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the
writ petition on the ground of laches."
04. In the present case, learned counsel for the respondents states that not
only was possession of the land belonging to the petitioner taken over but even
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,63,878/- disbursed to the petitioner through his
bank account No. 2527/26 maintained with the J&K Bank Branch Sangaldan. It
was thus urged that the present acquisition proceedings are not maintainable
especially in view of the fact that a single Bench of this Court vide judgement
and order dated 02.03.2021 in writ petition bearing OWP No.1494/2010 had
already held the writ petition to have been rendered infructuous.
05. There is considerable merit in what has been stated by learned counsel
for the respondents, especially in light of the ratio of the judgment passed in
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay's case. However, since learned
counsel for the petitioner has not come present today, which shows that the
petitioner is no longer interested to prosecute the matter. Be that as it may, we
instead of deciding the present petition on merits in absence of learned counsel
for the petitioner, we dismissed the same in default of appearance. Ordered
accordingly.
(Puneet Gupta) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu
29.10.2021
Muneesh
MUNEESH SHARMA
2021.11.01 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
