Land Acquisition Act | Non-Publication Of S.4(1) Notice In Gazette & Newspapers With Local Circulation Vitiates Acquisition: J&K&L High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
10 April 2026 4:05 PM IST
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that failure to publish the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990, in newspapers having effective circulation in the locality of affected persons, coupled with absence of publication in the Government Gazette, vitiates the acquisition proceedings.
The Court was hearing an intra-court appeal filed by the Union Territory of J&K challenging the judgment of the writ court, which had quashed the acquisition of land belonging to the respondents at village Batapora, Shopian.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed: “… we find ourselves in complete agreement with the Writ Court's findings that none of the newspapers in question possess significant circulation even within Kashmir, let alone in Jammu, where the respondents resided as migrants, further, nothing was brought on record to demonstrate that the said notification was published in the Government Gazette, … thus, it can be safely held that the appellant No. 4 failed to follow the mandate of Section 4(1) of the Act”.
The land of the respondents situated at Shopian was acquired for the construction of an ITI Complex under the Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The final award was passed on 28.08.2007.
The respondents challenged the acquisition proceedings by way of a writ petition, contending that mandatory procedural safeguards under the Act had not been followed. It was specifically pleaded that the notification under Section 4 was neither published in newspapers having circulation in Jammu, where the respondents were residing as migrants, nor was it properly served upon them.
It was also contended that their objections were not considered and no hearing was afforded to them under Section 5-A of the Act.
The appellants defended the acquisition by asserting that the respondents had knowledge of the notification and had filed objections, though belatedly, and that the statutory requirements had been substantially complied with.
The writ court allowed the petition and quashed the acquisition proceedings, which were assailed in appeal.
The Division Bench of the High Court examined the compliance of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990, which mandates publication of notification in the Government Gazette and in two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the locality, one of which must be in the regional language.
The Court found that the notification had been published in two newspapers, namely Subah-e-Kashmir and Srinagar News. However, it was observed that these newspapers did not have meaningful circulation either in Jammu, where the respondents were residing as migrants, or even within Kashmir.
The Court held that the requirement of publication is not a mere formality, but a substantive safeguard intended to ensure that affected persons are made aware of the proposed acquisition.
In this regard, the Court observed that “none of the newspapers in question possess significant circulation even within Kashmir, let alone in Jammu…”
The Court further noted that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate that the notification was published in the Government Gazette, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 4(1).
It emphasised that compliance with each mode of publication prescribed under Section 4(1) is mandatory, and failure to adhere to these requirements renders the entire acquisition process legally unsustainable.
The Court also rejected the contention that the respondents' knowledge of the notification or their filing of objections could cure the defect in publication. It held that statutory compliance cannot be substituted by presumed or actual knowledge.
The Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul (2011), wherein the Supreme Court has held that “the manner of publication of notification under Section 4 of the State Act is mandatory”, and that “the object of publication in terms of Sub-Section 4(1)(c) of the Act is to intimate the people, who are likely to be affected by the notification”.
The High Court upheld the finding of the writ court that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. It held that failure to publish the notification in newspapers having effective circulation and absence of proof of publication in the Government Gazette vitiated the acquisition proceedings.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the quashing of acquisition proceedings was upheld, subject to modification of relief in terms of passing a fresh award as directed separately.
Case Title: Union Territory of J&K v. Piaray Lal Tickoo
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 149