Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2011 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 668 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the Collector has fully complied with the mandates and procedures provided in sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990?
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990. 2. Validity of the acquisition proceedings due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. 3. The right of landowners to file objections and the procedural lapses in serving notices. 4. The role and requirements under the J&K Housing Board Act, 1976. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990: The Supreme Court examined whether the Collector complied with the mandatory procedures under Section 4(1) of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The Court emphasized that the procedures provided in sub-sections (a), (b), and (c) of Section 4 are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to. The Court found that while the requirements under sub-sections (a) and (b) were met, the notification was not published in a regional language newspaper as required by sub-section (c), making the acquisition proceedings invalid. 2. Validity of the acquisition proceedings due to non-compliance with statutory requirements: The Court held that the failure to publish the notification in a regional language newspaper, as mandated by Section 4(1)(c), rendered the entire acquisition process void. The Court cited several precedents, including Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, to support the view that non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions invalidates the proceedings. The Court reiterated that all prescribed modes of publication must be strictly followed, and any deviation results in the nullification of the acquisition process. 3. The right of landowners to file objections and the procedural lapses in serving notices: The Court noted that the landowners were not properly served with notices, and there were procedural lapses in informing them about the acquisition. Despite being aware that the landowners were residing in Delhi due to disturbances in the area, the authorities failed to ensure proper notification. The Court agreed with the High Court's decision to quash the acquisition proceedings from the stage of Section 5-A, allowing the landowners to file their objections afresh. 4. The role and requirements under the J&K Housing Board Act, 1976: While the Court did not delve deeply into the provisions of the J&K Housing Board Act, 1976, it acknowledged the argument that the Housing Board must have an approved scheme before proceeding with land acquisition. The Court left this issue open for the landowners to raise in their objections, and for the authorities to address in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the J&K Housing Board, upholding the High Court's decision to quash the acquisition proceedings due to non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions. The landowners were permitted to file additional objections within 15 days, and the Collector was directed to consider these objections and proceed in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements in land acquisition processes.
|