Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sansar Chand S/O Anant Ram vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 8 April, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
Sr.No.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 839/2022
CM No. 2528/2022 Res Reserved on:- 24.03.2026
Pronounced on:08.04.2026
Uploaded on:- 08.04.2026
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is pronounced: Yes
1. Sansar Chand S/O Anant Ram
2. Tej Ram S/O Sarvan Thakur
3. Mohd. Rafiq Khan S/O Mohd Shafi Khan
4. Mohd Fareed Khan S/O Mohd Shafi Khan
5. Mohd Ashraf Khan S/O Mohd Sikander Khan ....Petitioners
6. Jamal Din S/O Amkala
7. Mohd Jaffer S/O Amkala
8. Mohd Farooq S/O Mohd Sikander Khan
9. Ghulam Haider Khan S/O Mohd Abdullah
10. Mohd Amin S/O Saif Din
11. Mahmdoo S/O Lasu Wani
12. Abdullah S/O Razaq Kachar
13. Mohd Qasim S/O Gh. Mohd Mir
All residents of Village Mavolkote,
Tehsil Gool, District Ramban.
Through :- Mr. Nadeem Bhat, Adv.
Versus
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.
Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramban.
3. Collector Land Acquisition
(SDM) Gool
District Ramban. ....Respondent(s)
4. Executive Engineer, PWD Division, Ramban.
Through :- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners, through the medium of this petition, inter alia, have
prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) Writ of certiorari:- Quashing the final award bearing
No.SDM/G/PWD/1475-81 dated 03.07.2020 passed by the
respondent No.3 of the land acquired for the construction of
Sangaldan Kanthan road in Village Movalkote under NABARD
and quashing the Notification u/s 4(1) No.SDM/G/PWD/270-80WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 1 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991dated 07.03.2017 and 9, 9-A of J&K Land Acquisition Act 1990
and Notification No.6 and 7 of land J&K Acquisition Act
bearing no. DC/LA/RBN/17/46-47 dated 15.06.2017;
(ii) Writ of Certiorari:- Quashing the land acquisition proceedings
conducted by the respondents more particularly respondent
No.3 of the land measuring 45 kanal 7 marlas situated at
Village Movolkote Tehsil Gool District Ramban for the
construction of road from Sangaldan to Kanthan under PWD
being against the Section 11-B & Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act;
(iii) Writ of Mandamus:- Commanding the respondents more
particularly respondent No.3 to initiate fresh land acquisition
proceedings of the land measuring 45 kanals 7 marlas situated
at Village Movalkote Tehsil Gool District Ramban which has
been acquired for construction of road from Sangaldan-
Kanthan road for public purpose because the final award has
been passed in violation of Section 11-B of the J&K Land
Acquisition Act, 1990;
(iv) Writ of Mandamus:- Commanding the respondents to initiate
the fresh acquisition under Right to Fair Compensation and
Rehabilitation Act 2013 and pay the compensation to the
petitioners with interest as per the Fair Compensation Act; and
(v) Writ of Mandamus:- Commanding the respondents more
particularly respondent No.3 to pay the compensation of Fruit
bearing and non fruit bearing trees assessed by the authorities
in the year 2013 dated 07.01.2013 and 24.01.2013.
(vi) To pass such other orders or directions which the Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances
of case.”
2. Factual background as pleaded is that:-
(I) The government of J&K decided to construct a road from
Sangaldan-Kanthan Bye pass through Village Movalkote, Tehsil
Gool, District Ramban over the private land, houses and shopsWP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 2 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991owned and possessed by different persons including the petitioners
and for this purpose, land was acquired by the respondents 2 and 3
under the Land Acquisition Act but without paying any
compensation to the petitioners; that aggrieved thereof, the
petitioners approached this court in the year 2011 as also in 2014 by
way of filing writ petitions, which were disposed of with direction to
the respondents to assess the land of the petitioners and pay
compensation accordingly;
(II) That respondents 3 and 4 in the year 2012 initiated the acquisition
proceedings and Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
issued on 09.10.2012 but final award was not passed within the
stipulated time period; that again in the year 2017, notification U/S
4(1) of the Act was issued but the final award was not passed within
a period of two years as required U/S 11-B of the Act and the same
was passed on 03.07.2020 i.e. after the lapse of more than two years;
that the compensation for the fruit bearing tree was not paid to the
petitioners till date; that the respondents have not followed the
procedure laid down in Section 4(1) of the Act as the Notifications
u/s 4(1) and Sections 6 & 7 of the Act were not published in any
newspaper, as such, the whole acquisition proceedings are required
to be quashed; that no objections were sought from the land owners
including the petitioners as they were not afforded an opportunity of
being heard while Notifications U/Ss 9 and 9-A of the Land
Acquisition Act were issued on 23.08.2017; that the Collector was
duty-bound to pass the final award within a period of two years and
the act of the respondents clearly violated the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act.
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 3 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
(III) Aggrieved of the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioners
have approached this court by way of filing this writ petition.
Objections on behalf of respondent No.3- Collector Land Acquisition
(SDM), Gool.
3. In the objections filed on behalf of Collector Land Acquisition
(SDM) Gool, it is contended that Executive Engineer, PWD Division Ramban,
submitted an Indent vide his letter dated 20.01.2012 for construction of
‘Sangaldan-Kanthan Road’ in Village Movelkote, Tehsil Gool, District
Ramban; that Tehsildar Gool as per identification of indenting department,
prepared that revenue papers of land measuring 45 kanals 07 marlas situated in
Village Movelkote, Tehsil Gool, District Ramban; that Shajra Khasra of the
land was got attested/authenticated by the Revenue Authority/Indenting
Department.
4. It was next contended that notification under Section 4(1) of the
J&K State Land Acquisition Act Svt 1990 was issued by the Collector Land
Acquisition (SDM) Gool vide endorsement No.SDM/G/PWD/270-80, dated
07.03.2017, calling objections from the interested persons with regard to the
proposed acquisition; that no one turned up to file objections; that case was
submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Ramban for issuance of notification
under Sections 6, 7 and 17 of the J&K State Land Acquisition Act, who vide
No.DC/LA/Rbn/17/46-47, dated 15.06.2017 forwarded the case to Secretary to
Govt. Revenue Department, J&K Government and consequently Government
issued declaration under Sections 6 & 7 of the J&K State Land Acquisition
Act vide Notification No.379 Rev (LAJ) of 2017, dated 16.08.2017; that
Notifications u/ss 9, 9-A of the J&K State Land Acquisition Act were issued
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 4 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
on 23.08.2017 for calling objection, from owners/interested persons with
regard to the measurement of the land and quantum of compensation; that final
award was passed on 03.07.2020; that in the aforesaid backdrop, the
respondents have not violated any provisions of the Act and the full and final
payment of compensation has been disbursed to the land owners; that the
compensation for fruit bearing trees and also non fruit bearing trees have also
been reflected in the final award. Finally, it is stated in the objections that the
writ petition be dismissed as non maintainable.
Objections on behalf of respondent no.4- Executive Engineer, PWD
(R&B) Division, Ramban.
5. The Indenting Department in its reply, stated that petitioners have
concealed material facts from this court and disputed questions of law and
facts being involved in the writ petition, the same cannot be raised by invoking
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court, therefore, the writ petition be
dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the
petitioners have assailed the final award on many counts, however, he, as
instructed by the petitioners, restricts his arguments to the only legal issue
involved in the matter with regard to the fact that the impugned award having
been passed after the lapse of two years from the date of initiation of the
acquisition proceedings, is illegal having been passed after the statutory period
of two years. He has argued that the law is no longer, res integra, in view of
law of precedence enunciated by this Court through a Division Bench passed
in judgment dated 16.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 1274/2020 titled Gulzar
Ahmad Akhoon & Ors. V. UT of J&K & Ors. and also by a Writ Court in
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 5 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
WP(C) No. 2237/2024 titled ‘Hamid Ullah Wani V. UT of J&K & Ors.
vide judgment dated 10.09.2025 and prayed that the award be set aside on this
count only. He has argued that the Notification under Section 6 of the J&K
Land Acquisition Act had been issued on 15.06.2017, whereas the final award
was passed by the Collector on 03.07.2020, admittedly, after the lapse of two
years and is, thus, not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, besides reiterating the
contentions raised in the reply/objections, vehemently, argued for dismissal of
the writ petition being not maintainable as it involves disputed questions of
facts; that petitioners approached this court with unclean hands; that
respondents have not violated any of the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act as alleged by the petitioners as after passing of final award, full and final
payment of compensation has been disbursed to the land owners; that bald and
baseless allegations have been raised in the petition against the respondents.
Lastly, it is prayed that the writ petition be out-rightly dismissed as non
maintainable.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the file and
considered the matter.
9. The facts as emerging from the pleadings and, particularly, having
reference to the impugned final award passed by the Collector Land
Acquisition (SDM) Gool, with regard to land measuring 45 Kanals 7 Marlas
for construction of Sangaldan Kanthan Road in Village Movalkote, Tehsil
Gool, District Ramban are that the Government of Jammu & Kashmir vide
Notification No.379-Rev(LAJ) of 2017 dated 16.08.2017 through Revenue
Department issued declaration under Sections 6 & 7 of the J&K State Land
Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the land in question on an indent
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 6 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
submitted to the Collector by Executing Engineer, PWD Division Ramban
vide his letter dated 20.01.2012 and thereafter proceeded in the matter, the
Collector vide impugned final award acquired the said land granting
compensation to the tune of Rs.2,37,61,016/- as compensation along with
solatium @ 15% for the aforesaid land in favour of the interested persons. The
acquaintance roll prepared by the Collectorate and annexed with the final
award indicates that the petitioners’ land was also acquired vide the aforesaid
impugned final award.
10. In the background of the aforestated factual foundation, the
petitioners have raised a specific point for consideration as to whether the
impugned award passed by the respondent- Collector is in derogation of the
provisions of Section 11-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act and is
unsustainable in law, and the entire acquisition proceedings would be deemed
to have lapsed with the efflux of time, as provided under this provision.
Admittedly, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on
16.08.2017, which is the date on which the State Revenue Department vide its
Communication No. Rev/LAJ/273/2017, conveyed to the respondent-
Collector about the issuance of the declaration, and the final award was passed
on 03.07.2020, much beyond the stipulated period of two years fixed by
Section 11-B of the Act, inserted by the State Land Acquisition (Amendment)
Act, 1997.
11. In the aforesaid issue between the parties, it would be necessary to
first set out the provisions of Section 11-B which came to be inserted in the
Act by virtue of the State Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997.
“11-B. Period within which an award shall be made.-
The Collector shall make an award under Section 11
within a period of two years from the date of publication of theWP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 7 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991declaration and if no award is made within that period, the
entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse:
Provided that in case where the said declaration has
been published before the commencement of the State Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997, the award shall be made
within a period of two years from such commencement.
Explanation- In computing the period of two years
referred to in this section, the period during which any action
or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration
is stayed by an order of a court, shall be excluded.”
12. The Collector, as per this amended provision of Section 11-B of the
Land Acquisition Act was under an obligation to pass the award within a
period of two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6
of the Act and in default of it, the entire proceedings of the acquisition stood
lapsed and therefore the final award passed after the expiry of two years from
the date of publication becomes a nullity and cannot be acted upon.
13. In view of the facts stated hereinabove and reiterated at the cost of
repetition that in the case on hand, the Notification under Section 6 of the Act
was issued on 15.06.2017, whereas the final award came to be passed on
03.07.2020, which, admittedly, is beyond the prescribed limit of two years as
envisaged under Section 11 of the Act. In view of the admitted factual matrix
of the case, the only question which craves for determination in this case is
whether the entire acquisition proceedings stand lapsed for failure of the
Collector to make an award under Section 11 of the Act within a period of two
years from the date of publication of the declaration and if it is so, what is the
fate of the final award passed by respondent No.2, which is impugned in this
petition and allied question that also falls for consideration in this petition is as
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 8 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
to what relief the petitioners would be entitled to, if the entire acquisition
proceedings were held to be lapsed after efflux of time.
14. From the perusal of the Section 11 of the Act, in its entirety, it
becomes abundantly clear that it does not make any provision for making any
tentative award by the Collector, it only envisages a tentative assessment of
the compensation which in the opinion of the Collector should be allowed for
the land under acquisition as per Section 11(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Admittedly, the award in the instant case has been passed by the Collector
beyond the period of two years as prescribed under Section 11-B of the Act
and by that time, the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed by operation of
this provision. The Notification under Section 6 of the Act having been issued
on 15.06.2017, the proceedings which culminated into the impugned award
passed by the Collector shall thus be deemed to have lapsed. To be precise and
exact, the land acquisition proceedings, in the instant case, lapsed on
16.06.2019, when two years period from the publication of the declaration
under Section 6 of the Act, came to expire.
15. The respondents have not shown anything from the record that the
acquisition proceedings after the issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the
Act had remained suspended due to order of stay issued by any court of
competent jurisdiction so as to attract the explanation appended to Section 11-
B. The Apex Court in a case titled ‘Madhao Vs. The State of Maharashtra’
reported as (2007) 7 SCC 555 has categorically held that if the award is not
passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of the
declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the proceedings under the Act would
lapse. Similar question was considered by the Apex Court in another case
titled ‘Laxman Pandhya & Ors. V. State of UP & Ors.‘ reported as (2011) 14
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 9 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
SCC 94, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that the High Court was
justified in refusing to quash the acquisition proceedings despite the fact that
the award was not made within the period prescribed under Section 11-A of
the Act. Paragraph 12 of the judgment being relevant is extracted as below:
“12. A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that
the Collector is required to pass an award within the period of
two years from the date of the publication of the declaration
and if the award is not made within that period, the acquisition
proceeding automatically lapses. The proviso to Section 11A
lays down that where the declaration was published before
commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
1984, the period of two years begins from the date of
amendment, i.e. 24.09.1984. Explanation appearing below
Section 11A lays down that in computing two years, the period
during which any action or proceeding to be taken pursuance
to the declaration is stayed by an order of a Court, shall be
excluded.”
16. A Division Bench of this Court in a case titled ‘Gulzar Ahmad
Akhoon & Ors. V. UT of J&K & Ors.‘ passed in WP(C) No. 1274/2020 vide
judgment dated 16.11.2022, held in similar and identical factual background
that an award passed after statutory period of two years as contemplated under
Section 11-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, the proceedings having been
lapsed, the award passed thereon beyond the statutory period is nullity and is
liable to be quashed. However, while moulding the relief as having been
guided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in ‘Delhi Airtech Services Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr. V. State of U.P & Anr.‘ reported as 2022 INSC 1086, instead of
holding the acquisition proceedings having been lapsed, directed the
respondents that the final award insofar as it pertains to the petitioners was set-
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 10 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
aside and the Collector was directed to pass fresh award qua the petitioners
only and that for that purpose shall construe the date of passing of the final
award as the relevant date for determination of compensation provided under
the 1990 Act in respect of the acquired land of the petitioners only, besides
calculating other statutory benefits on such amounts including interest to be
calculated and determined by taking into consideration the date of taking over
the possession.
17. A single Bench in WP(C) No. 2236/2024 titled ‘Hamid Ullah Wani
& Ors. V. UT of J&K & Ors.‘ in judgment dated 10.09.2025 also set aside the
impugned award therein to the extent of petitioners having been passed after
more than two years with the directions to pass fresh award qua the property
of the petitioners.
18. A legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in case of ‘M/s
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. State of U.P & Anr.‘ reported as
2022 INSC 1086 makes it clear that in the event, the Collector invokes
urgency clause and possession of the acquired land is taken after tendering and
paying 80 percent of the estimated compensation, the land vests absolutely in
the Government and in such a situation, the acquisition proceedings would not
lapse in spite of the fact that the award may have been passed after expiry of
two years from the date of issuance of declaration. It has been made clear that
in order to avoid the application of Section 11-A of the Central Act of 1894
which is in pari-materia with Section 11-B of the State Land Acquisition Act,
the conditions laid down in Sections 17-A of the State Land Acquisition Act
which corresponds to Section 17(3A) of the Central Act, have to be fulfilled
inasmuch as, the land losers should have been paid 80 percent of the
compensation assessed and the possession of the land must have been taken
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 11 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
only, thereafter. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that if a land loser
does not challenge the acquisition proceedings on the ground that final award
has not been passed within two years of issuance of declaration, the
acquisition proceedings would not lapse and the possession taken would not
become per se illegal.
19. With the aforesaid legal position as enunciated by the Apex Court as
well as this Court and adverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the
impugned award has been passed by the Collector after lapse of two years
from the date of issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the State Land
Acquisition. Even receipt of the compensation as submitted by the respondents
by the land owners under protest during or after passing of the award cannot
be made a ground to upset the legal proposition as provided under Section 11-
B of the State Land Acquisition Act, which is squarely applicable to the facts
of the present case.
20. As per the impugned award, land measuring 45 Kanals 7 Marlas for
construction of Sangaldan-Kanthan Road in Village Movalkote, Tehsil Gool,
District Ramban has been acquired vide impugned award and the said land
belongs to the many land owners besides the petitioners herein. The other land
owners may not be aggrieved of the acquisition proceedings and they have not
approached this court, therefore, the land acquisition to the extent of the other
land owners cannot be set at naught. In these circumstances, the respondent-
Collector, to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings, would not only be time
consuming but will also involve a lots of efforts and expenses which would
ultimately not be even in the interest of the petitioners, therefore, direction for
initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings under the Act of 2013, in the facts
and circumstances of the case may not be appropriate, particularly, in view of
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 12 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Delhi Airtech Services
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and followed by this court in earlier judgments in similar
circumstances moulding of relief by providing the land losers who had
approached the court would be entitled to compensation by determining the
market value of their land with reference to the date of issuance of the final
award.
21. Having regard to the foregoing reasons and the discussion made
hereinabove, it is held that the impugned award qua the petitioners’ property
having been passed after the lapse of statutory period of two years, is a nullity
and is liable to be set-aside. The writ petition is, thus, allowed with the
following directions:
(i) The impugned Final Award no. SDM/G/PWD/1475-81 dated
03.07.2020 to the extent of petitioners is quashed;
(ii) The Collector Land Acquisition (SDM) Gool shall pass fresh
award in respect of the petitioners’ property only and for that
purpose, he shall construe the date of final award i.e.
03.07.2020 as the relevant date for determination of market
value by applying the yardstick, for assessment of the
compensation provided under the State Land Acquisition Act
in respect of the acquired land of the petitioners only;
(iii) The Collector shall also calculate and award other statutory
benefits on such amounts including interest, to be calculated
and determined by taking into consideration the date of taking
over the possession of the land;
(iv) The date on which the fresh award that may be passed by the
Collector in favour of the petitioners pursuant to this
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 13 of 14
2026:JKLHC-JMU:991
judgment is intimated to them, shall be the date of cause of
action, for seeking enhancement of compensation under the
State Land Acquisition Act if the petitioners or any of them is
dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation offered;
(v) The amount of compensation, if any already received by the
petitioners, shall be adjusted while disbursing the
compensation in terms of the fresh award that may be passed;
and
(vi) The compensation determined in favour of the petitioners
pursuant to this judgment shall not give cause of action to any
other land losers whose land has been acquired in the
impugned award.
22. With the above directions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed
of as allowed, along with pending application(s).
Jammu: ( ) (M.A. Chowdhary)
08.04.2026 Judge
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
WP(C) No. 839/2022 Page 14 of 14
