J&K Land Acquisition Act | Deputy Commissioner Not Authorized To Make Section 6 Declarations On 'Public Purpose': High Court
Shedding light on crucial aspects of the land acquisition process under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of a particular district has not been delegated with the power to make a declaration under Section 6 of the Act which is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for...
Shedding light on crucial aspects of the land acquisition process under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of a particular district has not been delegated with the power to make a declaration under Section 6 of the Act which is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purpose.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal further clarified that in view of SRO 235 the Deputy Commissioner has been delegated with the power of the Revenue Minister to make a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act but the power exercisable by the Government for recording satisfaction as to whether the land is needed for public purpose or not has not been delegated.
The observation came in a petition challenging notifications and declarations issued by respondent authorities under the J&K Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners sought a declaration that the proceedings initiated for acquiring specific parcels of land be declared void. They argued that the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act did not follow proper procedure.
They contended that Section 6 mandates a declaration to be made by the government after it is satisfied about the necessity of land acquisition for public purposes. The counsel emphasised that the satisfaction should be recorded by the government itself, not by lower-level officials like the Deputy Commissioner.
The respondents defended the actions taken by the Deputy Commissioner and cited that SRO 235 dated 11.08.2009 authorised certain officials, including Deputy Commissioners, to exercise powers under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act within their pecuniary jurisdiction. They argue that this empowers the Deputy Commissioner to issue notifications under Section 6.
The first question was whether the Deputy Commissioner had the power to issue declarations under Section 6. The Court ruled that while the Deputy Commissioner had been delegated the authority to issue declarations, the power to record the satisfaction of the Government as to the necessity of land acquisition could not be delegated. This power must remain with the Government, the court added.
On the second issue as to whether the satisfaction required under Section 6 should be recorded by the Government or the Deputy Commissioner, the bench clarified that the satisfaction must be recorded by the Government and not any district-level authority.
“..this court is of the view that the satisfaction, as envisaged in Section 6 of the Act of 1990, is only required to be recorded by the Government and that would mean the erstwhile Government of J&K and not any other authority/officer at district level like Deputy Commissioner in the instant case. The Deputy Commissioner is neither the Government nor the authority competent to record satisfaction as to whether a particular land is needed for public purpose or not”, the court maintained.
The court further explained,
“It is only when the Government is satisfied after considering the report that any particular land is needed for public purpose, a declaration has to be made to that effect under the signatures of the Revenue Minister or of some office duly authorized in this behalf”.
Applying the said legal position to the case at hand the bench found that in the present case, it was the Deputy Commissioner, who issued the contested notification, and recorded satisfaction in violation of the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
As a result, the Court found merit in the petitioner's claims and ruled in their favour. Accordingly, the notifications issued under Land Acquisition Act were invalidated and quashed.
Case Title: Gul Mohammad and Ors Vs State of J&K and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 224