Sr. No.11 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: WP (C) No. 771/2022 01. Tej Ram S/o Dallu. 02. Mohd Hanief Bhat S/o Mohd Shafi Bhat. 03. Abbul Rashid Bhat S/o Mohd Shafi Bhat. 04. Mohd Shafi S/o Abdul Majid. 05. Nazira Begum D/o Abdul Majid. 06. Thakar Dass S/o Balk Ram. 07. Gian Singh S/o Lahno Bali. 08. Hakam Din S/o Ghulam Mohd Bhat. 09. Abdul Aziz S/o Ghulam Mohd. 10. Mohd Shafi S/o Ghulam Mohd. 11. Nazir Ahmed S/o Mohd Sultan. 12. Gulzar Ahmed S/o Kaka. 13. Des Raj S/o Lahno Bali 14. Mohd Mukthyar S/o Feroz Din. 15. Ikhlaq Ahmed S/o Shukar Din. 16. Shamshad Begum W/o Abdul Latief Bhat. All residents of village Ashmar Tehsil Gool District Ramban. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Bodh Raj Sharma, Advocate. V/s 01. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through Commissioner Secretary to Government Revenue Department, J&K Government Civil Secretariat Jammu. 02. Deputy Commissioner, Ramban. 03. Collector Land Acquisition, (SDM), Gool, District Ramban. 04. Executive Engineer, PWD, Ramban. …. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Jagmeet Kour, assisting counsel to Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 11.03.2025 01. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioners have thrown challenge to final award dated 10.12.2021 passed by respondent No. 3-Collector Land Acquisition, (SDM), Gool, District Ramban as also the proceedings initiated for acquisition of land measuring 56 Kanals 04 Marlas situated in Village Ashmar Tehsil Gool, District Ramban. 02. The main ground urged for challenging the impugned award and the acquisition proceedings is that in view of the provisions contained in Section 11B of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, (SVT) 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Act’), the acquisition proceedings in the present case have lapsed because the final award has not been made within the stipulated time of two years from the date of issuance of notification regarding declaration under Section 6 of the State Act. 03. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 04. Insofar as the factual aspects of the case are concerned, the same are not in dispute. Respondent/Collector in his reply has admitted that notification under Section 4 of the State Act was issued vide endorsement No. SDM/G/PWD/136- 46 dated 29.04.2017. It has been further admitted by the respondent/Collector that the case was submitted to Commissioner /Secretary to the Government Revenue Department for issuance of notification under Sections 6, 7 & 17 of the State Act vide communication dated 16.06.2017 in pursuance whereof, the Secretary to the Government Revenue Department, J&K issued declaration under Section 6 and 7 of the State Act vide notification No. 416-Rev (LAJ) of 2017 dated 13.09.2017. It has been further submitted by the Collector in his reply that notification under Section 9, 9-A of the State Act was issued vide No. SDM/G/PWD/360-71 dated 02.03.2018 and the final award has been issued vide No. SDM/G/PWD/611-17 dated 10.12.2021. It has been submitted that 50% of the compensation has been disbursed to the land owners and for pending compensation the matter has been taken up with the Executive Engineer, PWD, Division Ramban, for release of funds. 05. From the aforesaid admitted facts, it is clear that final award has been passed by the Collector after the expiry of statutory period of two years from the date of issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the State Act. As per the mandate of Section 11-B of the State Act, the Collector has to make an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within the said period, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land would lapse. The explanation to Section 11-B provides that the period of two years has to be computed after excluding the period during which the proceedings have been stayed by any order of the Court. In the instant case, the respondents have not anywhere pleaded that acquisition proceedings were stayed by any Court, therefore, the Collector cannot claim the benefit of Explanation to Section 11-B of the State Act, the date on which the declaration under Section 6 of the State Act was issued. 06. Further it is not the case of the respondents that they have taken over the possession of land in question by taking recourse to urgency clause as contained under Section 17 of the State Act. For the sake of arguments even if it is assumed that the respondents have taken recourse to the urgency clause still then because they have not fulfilled the conditions regarding payment of 80% of the compensation to the land owners in terms of Section 17-A of the State Act, therefore, the action of the respondents for acquiring the land of the petitioners cannot be saved. It is pertinent to mention here that it is admitted case of the respondents that they have only disbursed 50% of the land compensation to the land owners. 07. For all what has been discussed hereinabove, it is clear that the impugned final award dated 10.12.2021 has been passed way beyond the statutory period of two years from the date of issuance of declaration. The acquisition proceedings have, therefore, lapsed which makes the final award passed by respondent No. 3/Collector to the extent of the petitioners unsustainable in law. 08. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned acquisition proceedings including the final award to the extent of the petitioners are quashed. The respondents are directed to initiate fresh process of acquisition of the land of the petitioners under the existing law relating to land acquisition and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents. The amount of compensation which has already been received by the petitioners shall be set off against the compensation that may be assessed in their favour under the fresh land acquisition proceedings. 09. The petition stands ‘disposed of’. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 11.03.2025 Renu Whether the Order is speaking? Yes Whether the Order is reportable? No Renu Bala 2025.03.12 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document