Substantial Compliance With Display Of Notice Under Land Acquisition Act Sufficient If Regional Language Newspaper Unavailable: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has allowed a review petition filed by the Union Territory of J&K, recalling its earlier judgment in terms of which it had quashed land acquisition proceedings initiated for the Islamic University of Science and Technology, Awantipora.The Court held that there was substantial compliance with Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act,...
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has allowed a review petition filed by the Union Territory of J&K, recalling its earlier judgment in terms of which it had quashed land acquisition proceedings initiated for the Islamic University of Science and Technology, Awantipora.
The Court held that there was substantial compliance with Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990, even though the preliminary notification was not published in a Kashmiri language newspaper, as no daily newspaper in Kashmiri having wide circulation exists in the locality.
The Court was hearing a review petition filed by the UT of J&K seeking review of the judgment and passed by a Division Bench in which it had declared the entire acquisition proceedings culminating in the award dated 20.02.2020 as null, void and invalid.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, while observing that “there is no manner of doubt that in the instant case there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,” held that the earlier Division Bench had failed to appreciate that apart from publication in two daily newspapers, the notice was also affixed at conspicuous places and the Patwari had informed all interested persons.
Background:
The Registrar of IUST, vide office communication in 2016, placed an indent before the Collector, Land Acquisition, Pulwama for acquisition of land situated in village Awantipora for creation of additional infrastructure for IUST. Pursuant thereto, the Collector issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act on 02.05.2017.
In response to the notification, four landowners filed objections. However, they did not object to the acquisition or the public purpose, instead, they requested the Collector to consider providing them alternate land for shifting their residences or adequate compensation.
Thereafter, notifications under Sections 6, 7, and 17 of the Act were issued. The emergency provisions under Section 17 were invoked. The final award was passed in 2020 for an amount of Rs.7,33,18,205/-. The landowners, including the respondents, did not accept the compensation and filed writ petitions before the High Court.
The Division Bench, vide its judgment found fault with the manner of publication of the Section 4 notification and held that the final award was beyond the prescribed period, thereby declaring the entire acquisition proceedings null and void. The review petitioners challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court, which partly allowed the appeal, set aside the finding on the award, and granted liberty to file a review petition on the issue of publication of the Section 4 notification.
Court's Observations:
The Court first set out the contours of review jurisdiction, noting that the three grounds under Order 47 CPC like discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, and any other sufficient cause, apply to writ proceedings as well. The Court found that the earlier Division Bench had committed an error apparent on the face of the record by failing to appreciate the factual position regarding publication.
Examining Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court noted that it requires publication through (a) public notice affixed at convenient places, made known by beat of drum and through local panchayats and patwaris and (b) publication in two daily newspapers having largest circulation in the locality, of which at least one shall be in the regional language.
The Court observed,
“... We can take judicial notice of the fact … that the regional language of the locality in question is Kashmir and there is hardly any newspaper published in Kashmir in the Kashmir language having wide circulation in the area. In that sense and eventuality, the doctrine of necessity would come into play. In the absence of any daily newspaper published in the Kashmir language having wide circulation in the area in question, the requirement of publishing notification under Section 4(1) at least in one newspaper in the regional language is to be taken as dispensed with.”
The Court further noted that the record clearly showed that a public notice was duly affixed at convenient places and the Patwari had informed the villagers. It stated,
“.. It is because of this publication, four of the respondents filed their written objections, not strictly objecting to the acquisition but making a request to the Collector concerned for providing them alternate land in lieu of the land sought to be acquired.”
The Court placed reliance upon Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, CMDA v. J. Sivaprakasam (2011) 1 SCC 330, holding that publication in newspapers having reasonably wide circulation is sufficient, and that if the person had actual notice, such as by participating in the enquiry under Section 5-A, the acquisition will not be vitiated.
The Court held,
“... It is true that the modes of publication of notice prescribed under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are mandatory in nature, so as to ensure that the interested persons whose land is needed for a public purpose are given adequate notice to object to the acquisition. However, if it is demonstrated before the Court that, notwithstanding some irregularity in the publication of notice, the interested persons were well aware of the notice and some of them had even submitted their objections, there would still be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act.”
In view of these findings the Court found merit in the review petition, allowed the same, recalled the judgment and dismissed the original writ petitions filed by the landowners.
Case Title: UT of J&K & Ors. v. Khalid Jehangir Bhat & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)
Appearances
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Senior AAG appeared with Ms. Maha Majeed for the review petitioners.
Mr. G.A. Lone, Senior Advocate appeared with Mr. Mujeeh Andrabi for the respondents.