AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Proceedings taken under Jammu and Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (herein after referred to as the
1968 Act), culminated in issuance of notice under Section 7(1) of the aforementioned Act. For facility of reference, this notice is reproduced
below:
Government of Jammu and Kashmir Home Department
NOTICEJ
Whereas notice under the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 7 of the J and K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Proper! Act, 1968
were issued by the Government to the below noted persons being the owners/ allotters/ tenants of the land described in the subjoint table calling
upon them to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the said property should not be acquired;
And whereas the said period has expired and the aforesaid owner/ allottees/tenants have conveyed their no objection for the acquisition of said
land to the Government.
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 7 of the aforesaid Act, the Government having been satisfied that
it is necessary so to do, hereby acquire the said property.
Name of village Name of owner Name of tenant KH ND Area KP
Jojte Kandu Mandir Pir 1002 3009
Teh. Now Shera Badaser 1003 14219
Ved
Distt. Parkash S/o 1004 707
Rajouri Raghupat Nath 1005 011
Raghupat Nat
R/o at Present 1006 3404
R/o at presentKaller
(Care taker) 1007 2507
1008 2813
Total Kacha Kanais 26910
Standard Kanals 17009
By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir
As compensation was not being paid to the petitioner, he approached this court. The writ petition was disposed of with the following direction
1) That the State of Jammu and Kashmir would consider the request made by the Union of India and pass further orders.
2) Let action be taken within a period of three months.
3) If the Union of India wants to retain the properly, then the compensation be paid.
4) If Union of India wishes to retain the property and wants to pay compensation and in case petitioner objects to the same, then further steps as
indicated in subparas (iii) and (iv) be taken within the further period of three months"".
As the arbitrator was not appointed in terms of order passed by this court, the petitioner has come to this court. Petition has been filed for
initiating contempt proceedings.
The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that Union of India is not keen to have this property on acquisition basis. They, however,
want to remain in possession.
It be seen that the stand as projected now is not tenable. Once proceedings initiated under Section 7(1) of the 1968 Act are complete and the
notice is published in the Government Gazette, then that property is to vest free from all encumbrances in the authority for whose benefit acquisition
is made. This is plain meaning of Section 7(1) and (2) of the 1968 Act. These provisions are reproduced below:
Section 7. Power to acquire requisitioned property:
(1) Where any property is subject to requisition, the Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire the property for a public
purpose, at any time acquire such property by publishing in the Government Gazette a notice to the effect that the Government has decided to
acquire the property in pursuance of this section;
Provided that before issuing such notice the Government shall call upon the owner of or any other person who in the opinion of the Government
may be interested in such property should not be acquired and after considering the cause, in any, shown by any person interested in the property
and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, the Government may pass such orders as it deems fit.
(2) When a notice is aforesaid is published in the Government Gazette, the requisitioned property shall, on and from the beginning of the day on
which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances and the period of requisition of such property shall
end"".
6) The fact that the notice was published in the official gazette is also bormed out from government notification which is also being reproduced
below:
Government of Jammu and Kashmir
Home Department
NOTICEJ
Whereas notice under the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 7 of the J and K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968
were issued by the Government to the below noted persons being the owners/ allottees/ tenants of the land described in the subjoint table calling
upon them to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the said property should not be acquired; And whereas the said period has
expired and the aforesaid owners/ allottees/ tenants have conveyed their no objection for the acquisition of said land to the Government.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 7 of the aforesaid Act, the Government having been satisfied that
it is necessary so to do, hereby acquire the said property"".
Name of village Name of owner Name of tenant KH ND Area KP
Jojte Kandu Mandir Pir 1002 3009
Teh. Now Shera Badaser 1003 14219
Ved
Distt. Parkash S/o 1004 707
Rajouri Raghupat Nath 1005 011
Raghupat Nat
R/o at Present 1006 3404
R/o at presentKaller
(Care taker) 1007 2507
1008 2813
Total Kacha Kanais 26910
Standard Kanals 17009
By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir
In view of the above, it is established that formalities which were required to be gone into, were gone into. The official notification came to be
issued in terms of Section 7(2). The question now arises as to whether the respondent state can take a plea that it can withdraw from the
acquisition.
The Stage at which the Government can withdraw from the acquisition is before the property come to vest with the acquired authority. Once the
process of initiation is completed and possession is taken by the appropriate Government then the concerned authority ceases to have the power
to withdraw from acquisition. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in the case reported as Lt. Governor of H.P. vs. Sri
Avinash Sharma 1970(2) SCC 149. This was the case under Land Acquisition Act. The provision of Section 48 were considered. It was
observed that once a property vests in the appropriate government then by no process it can be diverted to the original owner by merely cancelling
the notification. The aforementioned observations were approved in a later decision in the case reported as Murai and Others vs. Union of India,
1996 Supreme Court 712. In view of the above position of law, the stand taken by the respondents that it is not bound to pay compensation is
held to be contrary to the decision given by the Supreme Court. The respondents would accordingly reexamine the matter and take appropriate
decision with a view to release the compensation within a period of two months from the date copy of the order passed by this court is made
available by the petitioner to the respondents. The compensation as determined by the acquiring authorities be paid. If the petitioner feels aggrieved
of that order and if he makes a prayer for appointment of arbitrator, then this aspect of the matter be also taken note of as the direction regarding
this has already been given in the writ petition. 9. Contempt petition is disposed of accordingly with a liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition in
case need arises. Contempt proceedings are dropped.