A land-compensation award remains valid despite pending structural compensation; acquisition proceedings do not lapse.

The petitioners challenged the acquisition of land measuring 136 Kanals and 3½ Marlas at Village Gool for construction and improvement of the Gool–Budhan road under the GREF.

The acquisition commenced with a notification under Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, dated 27 October 2016, followed by a declaration under Section 6 dated 16 August 2017 and notices under Sections 9 and 9-A dated 23 August 2017.

The Collector issued an award dated 4 July 2018, determining compensation for the acquired land but leaving the assessment of compensation for certain structures pending.

The petitioners contended that no final award had been made within two years of the Section 6 declaration and that the acquisition had consequently lapsed under Section 11-B of the Act.

The respondents maintained that the award dated 4 July 2018 was final insofar as compensation for the land was concerned, and that the petitioners had received 80% of the land compensation.

Whether the award dated 4 July 2018 constituted an award under Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, notwithstanding that compensation for certain structures remained to be assessed?

Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 11-B because a complete or final award was not made within two years of the declaration under Section 6?

Whether the petitioners, after accepting 80% of the compensation for the acquired land, could challenge the acquisition and the award?

The Court applied Section 11-B of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, under which acquisition proceedings lapse if the Collector fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6.

Section 11 governs the Collector’s award, while Section 12 makes the award final and conclusive between the Collector and persons interested, subject to the remedies provided under the Act.

The Court held that an award determining compensation for the acquired land is a valid and final award even if compensation for superstructures, trees, or other items remains to be assessed separately.

Relying on Mohanji v. State of U.P., 1995 JT (SC) 8599, and State of Punjab v. Sharan Pal Singh, 1996 (11) SCC 683, the Court applied the principle that the law does not contemplate piecemeal awards for determining whether acquisition proceedings have lapsed; an award relating to the land must be treated as a complete award for the purposes of the statutory time limit.

The Court further applied the principle that a person who accepts compensation without protest cannot subsequently challenge the award under which the compensation was received.

The Court examined the award dated 4 July 2018 and found that the Collector had finally determined the rate and amount of compensation for the acquired land.

Since the compensation assessed for the land did not require approval by a higher authority under Section 11(2), that part of the award was final and binding.

The fact that compensation for 13 structures remained pending did not invalidate the award or trigger Section 11-B, because the award could be treated as a complete award for the land, with the outstanding structural compensation to be dealt with through a supplementary award or other lawful remedy.

The Court also found that the petitioners had accepted 80% of the land compensation without establishing that the acceptance was accompanied by a protest.

Their acceptance further disentitled them from challenging the acquisition and award.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the contention that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

The petitions were dismissed.

The Collector was directed to disburse the balance compensation to the rightful claimants and to complete the assessment of compensation for the remaining structures by passing a supplementary award as expeditiously as possible.