[J&K Land Acquisition Act] Publication In All Three Modes Prescribed U/S 4 Is Compulsory For Acquisition: HC Quashes Land Acquisition For Amusement Park

Justice Sanjay Dhar thus quashed the acquisition of 134 kanals in District Jammu, due to non-compliance with these statutory requirements.

“.. it is clear that publication of notification issued under Section 4 of the State Act in the manner prescribed therein is compulsory and the publication of the notice has to be undertaken by all the three modes as referred to in the said provision”, the court underscored.

The petitioners, seven residents of Village Abdal challenged a 2019 land acquisition award that allowed the Jammu administration to acquire 134 kanals and 11 marlas of land for an amusement park.

They claimed their families had cultivated the land for over 70 years, with their occupancy reflected in revenue records. Despite this, the Collector Land Acquisition (Respondent No. 5) allegedly bypassed mandatory procedures under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, by failing to serve notices under Sections 4(1), 5, 5-A, 6, 9, and 9-A of the Act and not publishing acquisition notifications in the Government Gazette or regional-language newspapers.

The petitioners also argued they were never heard during the process, rendering the acquisition ex-parte and illegal.

Adjudicating the matter Justice Dhar Justice Dhar stressed that Section 4 requires notifications to be published through three modes ie affixing notices at convenient places and announcing via beat of drums, Publishing in the Government Gazette & issuing notices in two widely circulated newspapers, including one in the regional language.

Citing the Supreme Court's Union of India vs Shivraj (2014), the court underscored that the right to object under Section 5-A is “not a mere formality.” The petitioners, as recorded tenants, were “interested persons” entitled to a hearing, which they were denied, the court stated.

The Court also found no evidence that the declaration under Section 6 was published in the Government Gazette. It also noted that notices under Section 9, which require the Collector to inform interested persons about the proposed acquisition, were never served on the petitioners, who were recorded as occupants of the land.

The High Court also referred to its own precedents, including Bansi Lal Bhat v. State of J&K (2012) 4 JKJ 272, Musafar Ahmed Beg v. State of J&K (2021) 6 JKJ 20, and Bashir Ahmed Bhat v. State (2023) 2 JKJ 310, all of which affirmed that non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act vitiates acquisition proceedings.

In light of these findings, the High Court ruled that the entire acquisition process suffered from fundamental legal flaws. The Court quashed the final award and directed the government to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within six months.

“In case the land in question is not required by the respondents they shall handover the possession of the same to the recorded occupiers, forthwith”, the court concluded.

Case Title: Rattan Chand Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment