Non-compliance with mandatory procedural and temporal requirements results in the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings.

The respondents, members of the minority community who migrated from the Kashmir Valley to Jammu, owned land measuring 9 Kanals 4 Marlas in District Shopian

The appellant State initiated compulsory acquisition of this land for the construction of an ITI Complex under the Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (“the Act”)

The respondents challenged the acquisition proceedings, alleging that the Section 4 notification was not published in newspapers with wide circulation in their place of residence (Jammu) and that their objections were neither heard nor objectively considered as per Section 5-A

While the appellants claimed they invoked urgency provisions under Section 17, the final award was pronounced on 28.08.2007, more than two years after the Section 6 declaration dated 14.01.2005

The Writ Court quashed the award and directed fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act

The appellants challenged this, noting that the ITI Complex was already constructed and original records were destroyed in a 2016 fire

1. Whether the publication of the Section 4 notification in newspapers with limited circulation satisfied the mandatory statutory requirements of the Act.

2. Whether the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to the objectors under Section 5-A invalidated the acquisition proceedings.

3. Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 11-B due to the award being passed beyond the two-year statutory limitation.

4. Whether the relief should be molded considering the completion of public infrastructure on the subject land.

The court primarily applied the JK Land Acquisition Act, 1990, specifically Section 4 (mandatory publication in two daily newspapers and Government Gazette), Section 5-A (mandatory hearing of objections), Section 11-B (limitation for making an award), and Section 17-A (requirement to pay 80% compensation before taking possession under urgency)

It relied on JK Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul (2011), which established that the manner of publication under Section 4 is mandatory

Union of India v. Shivraj (2014), which held that the right to be heard under Section 5-A is not a mere formality

Additionally, it applied the principle from Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2022) and Gulzar Ahmad Akhoon v. UT of JK (2023) regarding the molding of relief when possession is taken without complying with Section 17(3A) but infrastructure is already built

The court found that the Section 4 notification was published in newspapers with negligible circulation in Jammu, where the migrant respondents resided, and there was no evidence of publication in the Government Gazette, violating mandatory procedures

Regarding Section 5-A, the court rejected the appellants’ argument that belated objections waived the right to a hearing; the Collector’s failure to afford a hearing or objectively recommend the case to the Government constituted a grave procedural lapse

Furthermore, the court determined that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 11-B because the award was passed more than two years after the declaration, and the "urgency" defense failed because the appellants did not prove payment of 80% compensation as required by Section 17-A

Acknowledging that the ITI Complex was already functional and records were destroyed, the court determined that a total lapse of acquisition was impractical

It set aside the direction to initiate fresh proceedings under the 2013 Act. Instead, it ordered the Collector to pass a fresh award under the 1990 Act.

The market value is to be determined as of 28.08.2007 (the date of the original award), and all statutory benefits, including interest, are to be calculated from the date of taking possession (03.07.2005).

The exercise must be completed within three months, or the respondents will be entitled to costs of Rs. 50,000. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.