Surinder Singh Manhas & Ors. vs State of J&K and Ors.

Claiming to be the owners of various parcels of land situated in Village Majheen of Tehsil Samba, District Jammu, Forty Nine (49) petitioners have

filed this petition seeking a command against the respondents to denofity the acquired land, cancel the deeds executed by them in favour of any

person, society, institution or authority and to handover them the vacant possession of their land. Compensation for harassment and financial loss

too has been claimed by the petitioners.

The case set up, in the writ petition, in nutshell, is that Jammu Development Authority had acquired land in Village Majheen by misleading the

owners thereof in projecting that the land was needed for a public purpose for developing the area as SATELLITE TOWNSHIP SIDHRA, but

the malafide intentions of the Development Authority came to the fore when it was discovered that rather than developing the SATELLITE

TOWNSHIP, the Authority had been indulging in commercial transactions of their land, and while acting as such, had illegally handed over three

hundred (300) kanals of land to Batra Hospital, and ninety Five (95) kanals, to the Jammu and Kashmir Institute of Management, Public

Administration and Rural Development (IMPA, for short). Giving details about issuance of various notifications under the provisions of the State

Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 (1934 A.D), hereinafter to be referred as the ""Act"", the petitioners have questioned the acquisition proceedings

on the ground that the respondents had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act for acquisition of their land, and in invoking, inter alia

the provisions of Section 17 of the Act.

Petitioners say that they had not consented to offer their land to Jammu Development Authority for doing business, and as the Authority was

indulging in business activities, so they were entitled to restoration of' their land. Petitioners have stated in paragraph No. 12 of their petition that

80% of the compensation had boon offered to the interested persons with the promise that SATELLITE TOWNSHIP would be developed

providing facilities to the land owners of Village Majheen, but nothing of that sort had happened.

Contesting the case set up by the writ petitioners, the respondents say that having approached the Court after a period of fifteen (15) years of the

issuance of notifications under the Act, petitioners' writ petition was liable to be dismissed for unexplained delay and laches.

They have taken specific stand, on facts, that the land owners including the petitioners had received 80% of the acquisition compensation for the

acquired land in the year 1997 and that too without any protest, and in that view of the matter, they had no right to maintain the writ petition which

was, even otherwise unsustainable. It has been asserted by the Development Authority that the land had been acquired for public purpose of

setting up a SATELLITE TOWNSHIP and after issuance of notification under Section 17 of the Act; the land had vested absolutely without any

encumbrance, in the Authority. They have referred to various documents filed with their objections, to demonstrate that after the acquisition of land

and payment of compensation therefor the land stands reflected in the revenue records in its ownership.

Disputing the case set up by the petitioners, it has been asserted that procedure prescribed by the Act had been duly followed and 80% of the

compensation stood paid lo the land owners who had accepted it without any demur, after executing and signing requisite papers/documents in this

behalf. They have denied the transfer of land to Batra Hospital by use of police force. It is stated that when the land had been handed over to

IMPA, due notice thereof had been issued to all concerned.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case law cited by Mr. Jalmaria, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners.

From the documents placed on records by the respondents, it is apparent that the land owners, including majority of the petitioners, had executed

receipts and signed acquaintance rolls evidencing surrender of possession and acceptance of 80% of land compensation.

These documents further indicate that the land owners had recorded that they had no interest left in the land except for remaining compensation.

These documents had been executed by the land owners in presence of the witnesses in the year 1997.

Until receipt of 80% compensation for the acquired land, the petitioners and other land owners do not appear to have questioned the procedure

followed by the respondents in acquiring their land. Even thereafter, they do not appear to have agitated the acquisition proceedings including

notifications issued by the respondents, from time to time, for completion of acquisition proceedings. It was only in late 2006 that the petitioners

appear to have served a notice through their Advocate on Jammu Development Authority. Their grievance, in the notice was that after getting their

land at throwaway prices the Development Authority had been indulging in illegal sale of land to private institutions including IMPA, BSF,

ASCOMS, Private Dental Colleges and others and that the Authority had not accepted their request for allotment of residential plots.

Petitioners have very conveniently omitted to refer in the writ petition as to whether or not they had received the land compensation. Their counsel,

when asked about it during the course of consideration of this petition, had, however, conceded that majority of the petitioners had received

acquisition compensation, but some of them according to him had received it under protest. The documents placed by the respondents on records,

however, do not bear testimony to any such protest having been recorded at the time of their receiving the acquisition compensation. Copies of the

acquaintance rolls and the receipts signed by the petitioners and others do not indicate that the owners had received compensation under protest.

In view of the factual position emerging from the copies of the official documents placed on records by the respondents, it is apparent that

petitioners and other land owners had accepted 80% of land compensation and that too without any protest. Not only that, they had even

recorded in the certificate of surrender of possession, that neither they, nor any of their heirs/family members would have any interest in the said

land henceforth except to the remaining

Compensation.

All this thus demonstrates that the petitioners had not objected to the acquisition of land by the respondents. Petitioners' writ petition, questioning

the notifications including notification under Section 17 of the Act and the acquisition proceedings is thus hit by the bar of delay and laches, and is

even otherwise misconceived. Having accepted 80% of land compensation about ten (10) years ago and that too without any protest or grievance

either against quantum of compensation or the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners cannot be permitted to maintain the writ petition to question

the acquisition notifications which had been initiated about thirteen (13) years ago. Unexplained delay and laches in filing the petition, therefore,

operates heavily against the petitioners in maintaining their writ petition.

I am fortified in taking this view by the law laiddown by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Narayan Prasad Agarwal versus State of M.P and

others, reported as (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 456 and Northern Indian Glass Industries versus Jaswant Singh and others, reported as

(2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 335.

That apart, in view of the issuance of Notification under Section 17 of the Act, the notified property, has vested absolutely, and free from all

encumbrances, in the Government, and in that view of the matter, rights of the petitioners in the land in question, gets extinguished by the operation

of law. Having no right left in the property, they cannot maintain the writ petition to question the activities of the Jammu Development Authority.

Grievance of the petitioner that Jammu Development Authority had been indulging in land trading rather than taking steps to set up SATELLITE

TOWNSHIP SIDHRA too appears to be misconceived because the Outline Development Plan of SATELLITE TOWNSHIP at Jammu,

produced for the examination of the Court by Jammu Development Authority's counsel, Mr. Adarsh Sharma indicates its land use inter alia as

follows:

RESIDENTIAL

Plotted Developed

Group Housing

COMMERCIAL

Town Centre, Local and

and convenient shopping

Mixed Land use

CAPITOL COMPLEX

Government Offices/Public Sector/Private Offices

SPORTS & CULTURAL

Stadium, Auditorium,

Swimming Pool, Indoor Stadium,

Hostels etc.

SOCIO CULTURAL

TOURISM AND GUEST HOUSES

Hotels, Govt. Guest Houses

EDUCATIONAL

Higher Secondary Schools

& Primary Schools.

INSTITUTIONAL AND GOVT. USE

The entire area falls above byepass road.

Although the total available area is 174 hect,

the buildable is only 100 hect.

Research Institute, Nursing Homes, Trust

& Association Govt. & Public Sector offices

Trade Union Offices and Educational.

HEALTH

Dispensary, Health centers/clinics.

TRANSPORTATION

Taxi Stand, bus terminus

Railway station/line

ROADS

24.0m/18.0m/12.0m/7.5m

USABLE GREEN AND

RETENTION PONDS

a)Town Park with retention pond

b)Green Belts, Usable Green

UNUSABLE GREEN AND NALLAHS

Transfer of land by Jammu Development Authority to IMPA i.e. for institutional use, being one of the land use purposes delineated in the lay out

plan of SATELLITE TOWNSHIP SIDHRA cannot thus be said to be an act of the Authority contrary to the public purpose for which the land

had been acquired. Jammu Development Authority's counsel has further stated at the Bar that the Authority's plan of setting up SATELLITE

TOWNSHIP at Sidhra, Jammu is still operational and allegations to the contrary contained in the writ petition were incorrect.

I have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by learned counsel, on Authority's instructions, and am not inclined to believe the vague and

unfounded allegations to the contrary appearing in the writ petition.

Narayan Prasad Agarwal versus State of M.P and Others, reported as (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 456 and Northern Indian Glass

Industries versus Jaswant Singh and Others, reported as (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 335 cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, may not

be of any help to the petitioners because having acquiesced to, accepted the notifications issued under Section 17 and other provisions of the Act,

and accepted compensation therefor about ten (10) years ago, and that too without any protest, the petitioners are disentitled to question the

notifications issued under the Act at this belated stage.

This writ petition, therefore, lacks substance. It is, accordingly, dismissed.