Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Chenab Textile Mills Kathua J&K Through ... vs Sat Paul Son Of Late Sh. Babu Ram Resident ... on 11 April, 2016
Author: Tashi Rabstan
Bench: Tashi Rabstan
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU LPAOW No. 56 OF 2013 Chenab Textile Mills Kathua J&K through its Associate Vice President (Finance) Mr. Sunil Sharma aged 49 years son of Mr.M.D. Petitioners Sat Paul son of late Sh. Babu Ram resident of Govindsar Tehsil and District Kathua plus39 others. Respondent !Mr. Sunil Sethi Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravi Abrol Advocate. ^Mr. M.K.Sharma Advocate, Mr. L.K.Moza AAG. Honble Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar, Chief Justice Honble Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan, Judge Date: 11.04.2016 :J U D G M E N T :
N. Paul Vasanthakumar-CJ:
1 This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Writ Court made in OWP No. 228/2009 dated 13.05.2013 quashing the acq
2. Mr. Sunil Sethi learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that 5th respondent in the appeal received the
3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
Notification No. 04 of 2006 was issued on 29.12.2006 under section 4(1) of the State Land Acquisition Act 1990 (for short Ac The writ court considered the rival submissions and held that section 39 to 42 of the Act was not complied with before acquir was entered with the Government before the process of acquisition. The learned Single Judge further held that even after publ
4. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel also submitted that there is three years delay in filing the writ petition and out to increase the installed capacity from present capacity of 95300 spindles to about 2,00,000/- spindles within next seven yea communication to Director Industries and Commerce, J&K Government on 22.05.2006 informing that the revenue documents have got
5. The Collector Land Acquisition (Additional Deputy Commissioner) Kathua on 14.07.2006 addressed a communication to Tehsilda deposited and after a delay of 3 years from the publication of the award, acquisition has been challenged and therefore, ther
6. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents argued that no agreement was entered into between the official r
7. We have considered the rival submissions.
8. The point arises for consideration is as to (1) whether the private respondents are justified in filing the writ petition
9. Admittedly the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 by issui The Government by Notification No. 74-RD of 2007 dated 07.06.2007 accorded sanction under Section 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisi
10. The issue as to whether the Land Acquisition proceedings can be challenged after the award was passed was considered by H passed and possession was taken, the court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor
11. In the decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 2085 (Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan & ors
12. It is also a fact that out of 160 land owners, only 34 have questioned the acquisition i.e. 126 owners received compensat
13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court r that after the award is passed, no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceedings t
14. A Division Bench of Madras High Court in the decision reported in 2005 (3) CTC 1 (Soundaravalli Ammal v. Government of Ta A Division bench of Bombay High Court in the decision reported in (2008) 0 Supreme (Mah) 693 ( Navnath v. The State of Mahara
15. The decision cited by Learned Counsel for the private respondents, AIR 2013 SC 856 (Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana and O
16. In such circumstances issue No.1, namely, whether the land acquisition proceedings can be challenged after the award has
17. Insofar as the 2nd issue is concerned, acquisition proceedings with similar notification for extension of existing Indust
18. The contention raised by the private respondents who lands were acquired, that Section 39 to 42 of the Act have not been
19. Section 39 to 42 of the Act nowhere contemplates prior agreement of acquisition with the Government shall be made in writ The appellant company on 07.07.2005 addressed a communication to the Principal Secretary to Government, Industry and Commerce Government at the time of handing over the possession. The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Departm notification under Section 6 was issued and final award was passed. Thus there is agreement between the official respondents
20. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that strict compliance of Section 41 has not been ma
21. The acquisition having been made for a public purpose on satisfaction of the Government, which can be inferred from above
22. It is not in dispute that by extending the appellant-Unit lot of employment opportunities would arise to the public at la
23. The advantages in completing the mega project outweigh the alleged/possible disadvantages. The said view was expressed by reported in (2013) 6 SCC 620 ( G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India). In paragraph 240 it is held thus:-
" 240. The other principle that has been ingrained is that if a project is beneficial for the larger public, inconvenience to In the decision reported in (2004) 9 SCC 362 ( N. D. Jayal v. Union of India) Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that once a In the decision reported in (1997) 1 SCC 134 ( Ramniklal N. Bhutta and anr v. State of Maharashtra and ors) Hon'ble the Supre ..These challenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts hav
24. In such circumstances and in the light of the judgments cited supra, issue no.2 is also answered in favour of the appella
25. Accordingly the order of the Writ Court is set aside and the L.P appeal is allowed. No costs.
( Tashi Rabstan) (N. Paul Vasanthakumar) Judge Chief Justice Jammu, 11.04.2016 Anil Raina, Secy 16 ( Tashi Rabstan) (N. Paul Vasanthakumar) Judge Chief Justice Jammu, 11.04.2016 Anil Raina, Secy