HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2236/2024 CM No. 5446/2024 Hamid Ullah Wani and ors. …..Appellants Through: Mr. Irfaan Khan, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and ors. .…. Respondents Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 10.09.2025 1. The petitioners through the medium of present petition have challenged notification No. SDMB/Acq/495-502 dated 04.04.2018 issued by respondent No. 1 in respect of land measuring 01 kanal 07 marlas falling in khasra No. 451 and land measuring 01 kanal 03 marlas falling in khasra No. 452 situated at village Gund Adalkote, Tehsil Banihal, District Ramban issued under Section 4 (1) of Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition, Act (Svt.) 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for construction of road from Kharpora Rattan Bass Road via Shabanbass Km 1-6th in village Gund Adalkote, Tehsil Banihal District Jammu. Challenge has also thrown to subsequent notification dated 16.10.2018 issued under Section 6, Notification dated 14.11.2018 issued under Section 9, 9- A of the State Land Acquisition Act alongwith tentative award dated 26.08.2019 and the final award dated 28.01.2023. 2. As per case of the petitioners, their aforesaid land came to be utilized by the official respondents for construction of the road but the full compensation in their favour has not been released. It Sr. No. 32 2 WP(C) No. 2236/2024 has been submitted that only 30 to 40 percent of the compensation assessed in favour of the petitioners in terms of the impugned award dated 28.01.2023 has been released in favour of the petitioners in the year, 2018. 3. The petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings and the final award on the grounds that the same have lapsed in view of the provisions contained in Section 11-B of the State Land Acquisition Act. It has been contended that the impugned award has not been passed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the State Land Acquisition Act. It has been further submitted that the respondent-Collector has not invoked the urgency clause in terms of Section 17 of the State Land Acquisition Act nor the 80 percent of the assessed compensation has been tendered to the petitioners. Thus, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and the final award is liable to be quashed. On this basis, it has been contended that the respondents have to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2013”). 4. Reply on behalf of the respondent-Collector has been filed. In the reply, it has been admitted that Notification under Section 4 of the State Land Acquisition Act was issued on 04.04.2018 but no objections were received from any of the land owners in respect of the said notification. It has been further submitted that declaration under Section 6 and 7 of the State Land Acquisition Act came to be issued by the Government on 16.10.2018 3 WP(C) No. 2236/2024 whereafter, Notification under Section 9, 9-A of the State Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14.11.2018. According to the respondent-Collector, tentative award was made on 26.08.2019 whereas, the final award was passed on 28.01.2023 thereby acquiring the land measuring 22 kanals 02 marlas in village Gund Adalkote and land measuring 32 kanals 14 marlas in village Nagam. It has been contended by the respondent-Collector that the land measuring 01 kanal 07 marlas falling in khasra No. 451 and land measuring 01 kanal 03 marlas falling in khasra No. 452 belonging to the petitioners situated in village Gund Adalkote Tehsil Banihal has also been acquired for construction of the road in terms of the aforesaid award. 5. It has been submitted that in terms of the final award dated 28.01.2023, the total land compensation assessed is Rs. 9,21,67,057/- out of which an amount of Rs. 38 lacs only has been transferred by the intending department in the account of the Collector in the year, 2017. It has been submitted that balance amount of compensation has not been received from the intending department. A number of communications were addressed by the Collector to the intending department but till date, whole of the land compensation amount in terms of the final award has not been deposited with the Collector. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 7. As is clear from the pleadings of the parties, the facts in this case are not in dispute. The declaration under Section 6 of the State Land Acquisition Act has been issued on 16.10.2018 whereas, 4 WP(C) No. 2236/2024 the final award has been made by the Collector on 28.01.2023. Thus, the award has been made by the respondent-Collector after the expiry of two years from the date of publication of the declaration. 8. As per the provisions contained under Section 11-B of the State Land Acquisition Act, the Collector has to make an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration and if no award is made within the said period, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land stand lapsed. The explanation to the aforesaid provision makes it clear that in computing the period of two years, the period during which any action or proceedings have remained stayed by an order of Court, is to be excluded. 9. The legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P and anr; 2022 INSC 1086 makes it clear that in the event, the Collector invokes urgency clause and possession of the acquired land is taken after tendering and paying 80 percent of the estimated compensation, the land vests absolutely in the Government and in such a situation, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse in spite of the fact that the award may have been passed after expiry of two years from the date of issuance of declaration. It has been made clear that in order to avoid the application of Section 11-A of the Central Act of 1894 which is in pari-materia with Section 11-B of the State Land Acquisition Act, the conditions laid down in Sections 17-A of the State Land Acquisition Act which corresponds to Section 17 (3A) of the Central 5 WP(C) No. 2236/2024 Act, have to be fulfilled inasmuch as, the land losers should have been paid 80 percent of the compensation assessed and the possession of the land must have been taken only thereafter. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that if a land loser does not challenge the acquisition proceedings on the ground that final award has not been passed within two years of issuance of declaration, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse and the possession taken would not become per se illegal. 10. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now advert to the facts of the present case. As already stated, it is not in dispute that the award has been passed by the Collector after a lapse of two years from the date of issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the State Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings and the final award by contending that in view of the provisions contained in Section 11-B of the State Land Acquisition Act, the same have lapsed. It is not case of the respondents that they have taken the possession of the land in question after tendering 80 percent of the assessed compensation to the petitioners. In fact, there is a categoric admission of the respondent-Collector that only an amount of Rs. 38 lacs out of more than Rs. 9 crores of assessed compensation has been deposited by the intending department so far. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that they have received only 30 to 40 percent of the compensation appears to be well founded. Even otherwise, it is not the case of respondents that urgency clause under Section 17 of the State Land Acquisition Act has been invoked by the Collector. Therefore, the provisions contained in 6 WP(C) No. 2236/2024 Section 11-B of the State Land Acquisition Act are attracted to the facts of the present case. 11. The question that arises for determination is as to what should be the course of action that may be adopted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is to be noted that as per the impugned award, land measuring 22 kanals measuring 02 marlas in village Gund Adalkote and land measuring 32 kanals 14 marlas in village Nagam has been acquired. The said land belongs to multiple land owners. The petitioners own only 02 kanals and 10 marlas out of the acquired land. The other land losers are not aggrieved of the acquisition proceedings as they have not approached this Court. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings to the extent of other land losers cannot be set at naught. In these circumstances, directing the respondent-Collector to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings for only 2 kanals and 10 marlas of land would not only be time consuming but it will also involve a lot of effort and expenses, which would ultimately not be even in the interest of the petitioners. Therefore, directing initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings under the Act of 2013 in the facts and circumstances of the case may not be appropriate. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra) in similar circumstances has moulded the relief by providing that the land losers who had approached the court would be entitled to compensation by determining the market value of their land with reference to the date of issuance of final award. The relevant directions passed by the Supreme Court in the said case are reproduced as under:- 7 WP(C) No. 2236/2024 “(a) The respondents shall construe 09.06.2008 as the relevant date and determine the market value prevailing as on that date applying the yardstick under Act, 1894 in respect of the acquired land. (b) To calculate the statutory benefits on such amount including interest, the same shall be determined by taking into consideration the date of the Section 4 notification dated 17.04.2002 since the appellant was dispossessed on 04.02.2003 pursuant to the same. (c) The date on which the fresh award is passed pursuant to this judgment and communicated shall be the date of cause of action for seeking enhancement of compensation if the appellant is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation offered. (d) The compensation determined in this case shall not give the cause of action to any other land loser whose land is acquired under the same notification to seek redetermination of compensation. (e) The appellant shall be entitled to the cost incurred in these proceedings.” 13. Following the aforesaid guidelines, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gulzar Ahmad Akhoon and ors. Vs. UT of J&K and ors; 2023 (1) JKJ 68 adopted a similar methodology while moulding the relief of the land losers who had succeeded in establishing before the Court that final award had been passed beyond the prescribed period of two years from the date of issuance of declaration. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that this Court in the case of Abdul Gani and anr. Vs. UT of J&K and ors.; 2025 0 Supreme (J&K) 2 had, in similar circumstances, issued directions for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the Act of 2013. In this regard, it is to be noted in Abdul Gani’s case (supra) the final award had not been passed by the Collector even after lapse of more than two years of issuance of notification under Section 6 & 7 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is, in these circumstances, that this Court directed initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 8 WP(C) No. 2236/2024 2013. The ratio laid down in the said case is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case as, in the instant case, the final award stands already passed by the Collector. 15. Apart from the above, the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra) and Division Bench of this Court in Gulzar Ahmad Akhoon’s case (supra) have a binding force on this Court and as such, even if there is a divergent view taken by this Court in some other case, the same cannot be repeated and reiterated. 16. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- a) The final award dated 28.01.2023 to the extent of petitioners is set aside. b) The Collector, Land Acquisition, Banihal shall pass fresh award in respect of the petitioners only and for that purpose, he shall construe 28th January, 2023 (date of final award) as the relevant date for determination of market value. However, he shall apply the yardstick for assessment of compensation provided under the State Land Acquisition Act in respect of the acquired land of the petitioners only. c) The Collector shall also calculate other statutory benefits on such amounts including interest to be calculated and determined by taking into consideration the date of taking over possession. 9 WP(C) No. 2236/2024 d) The date on which the fresh award that may be passed by the Collector in favour of the petitioners pursuant of this judgment is intimated to them shall be the date of cause of action for seeking enhancement of compensation under the State Land Acquisition Act, if the petitioners or any of them is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation offered. e) The amount of compensation, if any, already received by the petitioners shall be taken into account while disbursing the compensation in terms of the fresh award that may be passed. f) The compensation determined in favour of the petitioners pursuant to this judgment shall not give cause of action to any other land losers whose land has been acquired under the impugned award. 17. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 10.09.2025 Tarun/PS Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? Yes Tarun Kumar Gupta 2025.09.17 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document