UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT vs ABDUL GANI AND OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU

LPA No.125/2025


Pronounced on: 29.10.2026
Uploaded on: 30.10.2026
Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced: Full


Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and others ...Appellant(s)

Through:-
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG

Versus

Abdul Gani and others ...Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. R.K.S.Thakur, Advocate with
Ms. Anandita Thakur, Advocate


Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE




JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar “J”

1. This intra Court appeal filed by the appellants arises from an
th
order and judgment dated 26 February, 2024 passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court [“Writ Court”] in WP(C)
No.168/2022 titled Sh. Abdul Gani and others v. Union Territory
of J&K and others , whereby the Writ Court has allowed the writ
petition filed by the respondents and quashed the acquisition
proceedings initiated by appellant No.2 by issuing a notification
dated 02.11.2017 under Section 4(1) of the J&K Land
Acquisition Act, 1990 Svt. [“Act of 1990”] with a further
direction to the appellants to initiate and conclude the acquisition

LPA No.125/2025 2

proceedings afresh in respect of land measuring 34 kanals 19
marlas comprised in different khasra numbers, situated at village
Tetharka, Tehsil Gool, District Ramban [“subject land”]. The
appellants have also been burdened with exemplary costs of
Rs.6.00 lacs for utilization of acquired land for 22 years without
payment of any compensation to the respondents.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leadings to the filing of this appeal are
that the subject land owned by the respondents was allegedly
taken over by the appellants for construction of a road in the year
2002 without acquiring the same in accordance with the land
acquisition laws and payment of compensation assessed
thereunder. It seems that the process for acquisition of the
subject land was initiated by appellant No.2 (Collector, Land
Acquisition, Ramban) by issuing an acquisition notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1990 on 09.01.2014. This was
followed by notification dated 04.02.2014 issued under Section 6
of the Act of 1990. Thereafter notification under Section 9 and
9-A was issued on 03.03.2014. Tentative assessment of
compensation was made in terms of tentative award passed by
appellant No.2 on 27.08.2014 but no compensation was
disbursed to the respondents. This constrained the respondents to
file OWP No.1765/2016, which came to be disposed of by this
Court in terms of order dated 14.08.2017, holding that the land
acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of Section 4(1)

LPA No.125/2025 3

Notification dated 09.01.2014 had lapsed in view of the
provisions of Section 11-B of the Act of 1990. The Single Bench
of this Court, thus, quashed the acquisition proceedings and
directed the appellants herein to commence fresh acquisition
proceedings within four weeks and complete the entire exercise
within six months.
3. The judgment was accepted by the appellants and as a result, a
fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1990 was
issued on 02.11.2017. This was followed by Notification under
nd
Section 6 and 7 of the Act of 1990 issued on 22 February,
2018. Notification under Section 9 and 9-A was issued on
02.03.2018, but the final award was passed by appellant No.2
only on 10.12.2021 i.e. much after the expiry of two years’ time
as envisaged under Section 11-B of the Act of 1990.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed WP(C) No.168/2022
before the Writ Court seeking, inter alia , a writ of certiorari for
quashing the draft award dated 19.07.2018 on the ground that the
entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed in terms of Section 11-
B of the Act of 1990 for failure of the Collector concerned to
pass award within a period of two years from the date of
publication of notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1990.
The petition was contested by the appellants herein but the same
came to be allowed by the Writ Court in terms of the order and
judgment impugned in this appeal.

LPA No.125/2025 4

5. Learned Writ Court noted that in the instant case declaration
under Section 6 and 7 of the Act of 1990 was issued on
22.02.2018, whereas the final award was passed by the Collector
on 10.12.2021 i.e. well beyond the period of two years. Having
taken note of the provisions of Section 11-B of the Act of 1990,
the Writ Court concluded that the entire acquisition proceedings
initiated in terms of notification dated 02.11.2017 stood lapsed.
It is in these circumstances, the Writ Court while quashing the
acquisition proceedings directed the appellants to initiate and
conclude the acquisition proceedings afresh in accordance with
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [the Act
of 2013”]. The Writ Court has also imposed exemplary costs of
Rs.6 lacs on the appellants for depriving the respondents from
utilization of their proprietary land without payment of any
compensation.
6. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellants primarily
on the ground that the Writ Court has failed to apricate that in
the instant case the appellants had invoked the special powers in
case of urgency vested in the Government under Section 17 of
the Act of 1990 and, therefore, provisions of Section 11-B of the
Act of 1990 were not attracted. Reliance was placed by Mr.
Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG, appearing for the appellants, on a
judgment of this Court dated 16.11.2022 passed in Gulzar

LPA No.125/2025 5

Ahmad Akhoon and others v. UT of J&K and others WP(C)
No.1274/2020 and judgment dated 08.04.2026 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in U T of J&K and others v. Pyare
Lal Tickoo, LPA No.311/2025.
7. Per contra , Mr. R.K.S.Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, would argue that the judgment passed by the Writ
Court is fully in consonance with the settled legal position and,
therefore, does not call for interference by this Court in these
proceedings. He would argue that once it is not in dispute that
the final award was passed by the Collector concerned beyond
the period of two years from the date of declaration issued under
Section 6 of the Act of 1990, there was no escape from the
provisions of Section 11-B of the Act of 1990. He would further
argue that mere invoking of Section 17 of the Act of 1990 is not
enough to save the acquisition proceedings from being declared
having lapsed under Section 11-B of the Act of 1990, but the
appellants are under an obligation to plead, demonstrate and
prove that not only the possession of the land was taken over but
that eighty (80) percent of the tentative assessed compensation
was also tendered/disbursed to the interested persons. He would,
therefore, submit that in the instant case there is no dispute that
80% of the assessed amount of compensation was never paid to
the respondents, though, the possession of the subject land was
already with the appellants. It is argued by Mr. Thakur that the

LPA No.125/2025 6

respondents are also required to be compensated for the
unauthorized use and occupation of the land since the year 2003
without payment of any compensation.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, we are of the considered opinion
that the judgment passed by the Writ Court to the extent it holds
that the acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of notification
dated 02.11.2017 issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1990 had
lapsed due to the failure of the Collector, Land Acquisition to
pass final award within a period of two years from the date of
declaration issued by the Government under Section 6 and 7 of
the Act of 1990 is legally perfect. True it is that the declaration
in terms of Section 6 was issued on 22.02.2018, whereas the
final award was passed on 10.12.2021, which is well beyond the
period of two years. It is also not in dispute that, though, the
appellants invoked Section 17 of the Act of 1990 but 80% of the
tentatively assessed compensation was not tendered to the
respondents.
9 From a conjoint reading of Sections 17 and 17-A of the Act of
1990, it clearly transpires that in case of urgency, the
Government may direct the Collector to take possession of any
land needed for public purpose within fifteen days from the
publication of notification under Section 9(1). Even though no
final award in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1990 is made,

LPA No.125/2025 7

such land of which possession is taken by the Collector under
Section 17 would vest absolutely in the Government free from
all encumbrances. However, Section 17-A of the Act of 1990
prescribes that the Collector shall tender and pay 80% of the
compensation of such land as estimated by him to the persons
interested and entitled thereto, before taking possession under
Section 17 of the Act of 1990. It is, thus, well settled that the
Collector, if directed by the Government under Section 17 of the
Act of 1990, is empowered to take over possession of any land
needed for public purpose without making final award, yet he
shall not take possession of such land unless he tenders and
makes payment of 80% of the compensation to the land losers.
10. Admittedly, in the instant case, Section 17-A was not followed
and, therefore, the applicability of Section 11-B of the Act of
1990 to the acquisition proceedings in question was not
excluded. The Writ Court has, therefore, correctly appreciated
the controversy and passed the judgment impugned holding the
entire acquisition proceedings having lapsed.
11. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG, could not dispute the legal
and factual position adumbrated by the Writ Court in the
judgment impugned. He, however, submits that in the instant
case where the subject land is already in possession of the
appellants and has been put to public use, it would not be in the
fitness of the things to direct the appellants, at this stage, to go

LPA No.125/2025 8

for third round of acquisition and, therefore, it would meet the
ends of justice, if the relief claimed by the respondents in the
writ petition is suitably modified so that interests of both sides
are taken care of in the larger interest of public at large. He
draws support from the judgment passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Gulzar Ahmed Akhoon (supra),
where the Division Bench in a similar set of circumstances
disposed of the Writ Petition by issuing following directions:
“ a) The final award dated 11th August, 2020 insofar as it pertains to
the petitioners is set aside.
b) The Collector Land Acquisition, Budgam shall pass fresh award
th
qua the petitioners only and for that purpose shall construe 11
August, 2020 (date of final award) as the relevant date for
determination of market value but shall apply the yardsticks for
assessment of compensation provided under the 1990 Act in
respect of acquired land of the petitioners only. The Collector
shall calculate other statutory benefits on such amounts including
interest to be calculated and determined by taking into
consideration the date of taking over possession i.e. 13th March,
2018.
c) The date on which fresh award is passed in favour of the
petitioners pursuant to this judgment and intimated to the
petitioners shall be the date of cause of action for seeking
enhancement of compensation under the 1990 Act, if the
petitioners or any of them is dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation offered.
d) While making payment of compensation assessed in terms of this
judgment, the amount of compensation, if any, received by the
petitioners shall be taken into account.
e) That the compensation determined in favour of the petitioners
pursuant to this judgment shall not give cause of action to any
other land loser, whose land is acquired under the same
notification to seek re-determination of the compensation.”

12. The instant case is not different in any manner. There have been
two rounds of acquisition proceedings, one initiated in the year
2014 and the second initiated in the year 2017. On both the
occasions, Writ Court has declared the acquisition proceedings

LPA No.125/2025 9

lapsed by efflux of time, as prescribed under Section 11-B of the
Act of 1990. We are in agreement with Mr. Gupta that it would
not be in the public interest to call upon the appellants to go for
third round of acquisition, for, doing so would not only harm the
public interest but will also delay the disbursement of fair and
just compensation to the respondents as well. The parties have
litigated enough and now it is time to put a quietus to the
controversy.
13. Insofar as contention of the respondents that the subject land was
taken over by the appellants in the year 2002/2003 is concerned,
the same is not substantiated by any documentary evidence.
There is nothing placed on record by the respondents to
demonstrate that they ever approached any authority in the year
2002 or thereafter with the grievance that their proprietary land
has been forcefully taken possession of by the appellants and
that they have not been paid any compensation for such
deprivation.
14. In the absence of any cogent documentary evidence on record,
we are left with no option but to assume that the subject land was
taken over by the appellants only when notification under
th
Section 4 of the Act of 1990 was issued i.e. 9 January, 2014. It
is, thus, this date from which the respondents could be held
entitled to payment of compensation.

LPA No.125/2025 10

15. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are
persuaded to follow the view taken by the Supreme Court in the
case of M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. and another v.
State of U.P. and another, 2022 INSC 1086 and followed by
this Court in the cases of Gulzar Ahmad Akhoon and Piaray Lal
Tickoo (supra).
16. For the foregoing reasons, we dispose of this appeal by directing
as under:
th
i) The final award dated 10 December, 2021 passed by the
appellants insofar as it pertains to the respondents herein is
set aside.
ii) The Collector, Land Acquisition (S.D.M.), Gool shall pass
fresh award qua the respondents only and for that purpose
th
shall construe 10 December, 2021 (the date of final award)
as the relevant date for determination of market value but
shall apply the yardsticks for assessment of compensation
provided under the Act of 1990 in respect of the acquired
land of the respondents only.
iii) The collector shall calculate other statutory benefits of such
land including interest to be calculated and determined by
taking into consideration the date of taking over possession

LPA No.125/2025 11

th
i.e. 9 January, 2014 (the date on which notification under
Section 4 of the Act 1990 was issued).
iv) The date on which fresh award is passed in favour of the
respondents pursuant to this judgment and intimated to the
respondents shall be the date of cause of action for seeking
enhancement of compensation under the Act of 1990, if the
respondents or any of them is dissatisfied with the quantum
of compensation determined/assessed.
v) While making payment of compensation assessed in terms of
this judgment, the amount of compensation, if any received
by the respondents, shall be taken into account.
vi) That after determination of compensation in favour of the
respondents pursuant to this judgment shall not give cause of
action to any other land loser, whose land is acquired under
the same notification to seek re-determination of the
compensation.
vii) Since the respondents have been made to litigate in the Court
for failure of the appellants to conclude the acquisition
proceedings within time provided under the Act of 1990, as
such, the respondents are entitled to be compensated
accordingly. The Appellants are held liable and directed to

LPA No.125/2025 12

pay costs of Rs.3.00 lac to the respondents to be shared by
them equally.
17. The judgment of the Writ Court is modified to the aforesaid
extent and the Appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly.


(M A Chowdhary) ( Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
29.10.2026
Vinod, Secy Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Vinod Kumar
2026.10.29 21:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document