Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.— 1. Writ petitions have been decided by a common judgement, these appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgement. 2. Notification u/s 4(1) of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (1931 AD), ('Act' for short) was issued on 14/11/2009, wherein the interested persons were notified and were given 15 days time for filing objections. 422 kanals and 12 = marlas of land were notified for being acquired for public purpose, viz. "construction of new Bus Stand and Approach Katra" at village Kundrian (Katra). Pursuant to issuance of the said notification, declaration u/s 6 of the 'Act' was also issued and steps in accordance with section 7&8 of the 'Act' were taken and notifications were issued u/s 9 & 9(a) of the 'Act'. Recourse was had to section 17 of the 'Act'. The appellants excepting appellants in OWP 1239/2010 (LPAOW 170/2011), challenged the notification u/s 4(1) and all the appellants challenged the declaration issued u/s 6 of the 'Act' as also notification issued u/s 9 & 9-A of the 'Act'. The learned writ Court heard all the writ petitions together and disposed them of in terms of paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgement pronounced on 07-07-2011. 3. The appellants are aggrieved of the said judgement and have challenged the same in the LPAs, inter alia, on the ground that the notification u/s 4(1) of the 'Act' is illegal and there is total non compliance with the mandate contained therein. 4. The learned counsel submitted that the writ Court has, at paragraph 20 of the judgement, observed that after the appellants are heard by the Collector in accordance with the mandate contained in section 5-A(2) of the 'Act' and after making recommendations to the Government, decision taken by the Government "shall be binding on the petitioners" and stated that same is illegal and such a direction would preclude the appellants from challenging the actions of the Government even if same are illegal. Learned counsel submitted that such a direction is unwarranted in law and cannot be sustained. Learned counsel submitted that such a direction is unwarranted in law and cannot be sustained. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned writ Court has repelled the challenge thrown to the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the 'Act' on the ground that the appellants have filed objections to the said notification and the purpose underlying the notification u/s 4(1) of the 'Act' was, thus, served and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellants, is not a correct view taken in law. Learned counsel also submitted that the observation made in the judgement by the learned writ Court that "the observation made in the judgement shall not prevent the respondents to invoke the provision of Section 17 of the 'Act', if so required," is also unwarranted as the said observation can be taken by the respondents to be a direction for invoking the provisions of section 17 of the 'Act'. Learned counsel, in support of their contentions, referred to and relied upon the judgements reported in AIR 1985 SC 1622 , AIR 1990 SC 731 & 2011 AIR SCW 5240. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for allowing of the appeals. Paragraphs 20 & 22(A) of the impugned judgement are taken note of: "20. In view of the law as referred above coupled with the position of the case in hand, it has to be concluded that the petitioners have not been heard in support of their objections effectively, therefore, acquisition proceedings under Sections 6,9 & 9A and Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act vis-'-vis land of the petitione4rs are held invalid. The notification issued under Section 4 of the Act is held to be valid. The respondent No. 2 in accordance with Section 5-A(2) of the Act shall hear the petitioners in support of their objections and thereafter shall formulate his report which shall contain his recommendations vis-'-vis each objection and thereafter such recommendatory report shall be submitted to the Government and it is then for the Government to take any decision which shall be binding on the petitioners. 22(A) Viewed thus, as concluded hereinabove, all the proceedings vis-a-vis owners/interested persons who have not filed any objections and have accepted the compensation, shall be final, shall not be open to any question and vis-'-vis that land, respondents shall be at liberty to proceed ahead to utilize the same for the purpose it has been acquired because question of land required for public purpose i.e. construction of bus stand has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition (PIL) No. 878/99, so same is not open to question now. The order of status quo vis-'-vis such land shall cease to be in operation." 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after passing of the impugned judgment, objections, filed by the appellants to the notification u/s 4(1) of the 'Act', were considered and the respondents were also given opportunity of hearing and thereafter recommendations along with the record were sent to the Government by the Collector, where after declaration u/s 6 of the 'Act' has been made by the Government and orders have also been taken in terms of section 7 of the 'Act'. Learned counsel submitted that the only remedy available to the appellants is to challenge the said notifications and in the aforementioned factual background, these appeals are rendered infructuous. Learned counsel also submitted that the judgements, impugned in these appeals, are legal and do not call for any interference. 6. Before dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is deemed appropriate to take note of article 19(1)(f) and article 31 of the Constitution of India and section 4 of the 'Act' and the amendment made in the said section in terms of section 2 of the State Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997: "19(1). All citizens shall have the right - (a toe).. (f) to acquire, hold and dispose of property; (g)..-." "Article 31 (1) No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. All citizens shall have the right - (a toe).. (f) to acquire, hold and dispose of property; (g)..-." "Article 31 (1) No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. (2) No property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authority of a law which provides for compensation for the property so acquired or requisitioned and either fixes the amount of the compensation or specifies the principles on which, and the manner in which, the compensation is to be determined and give; and no such law shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate. (2A) Where a law does not provide for the transfer of the ownership or right to possession of any property to the State or to a corporation owned or controlled by the State, it shall not be deemed to provide for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property, notwithstanding that it deprives any person of his property. (3) No such law as is referred to in clause (2) made by the Legislature of a State shall have effect unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent. (4) If any Bill pending at the commencement of this Constitution in the Legislature of a State has, after it has been passed by such Legislature, been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, then, notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the law so assented to shall not be called in question in any court on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of clause (2). (5) Nothing in clause (2) shall affect- (a) the provisions of any existing law other than a law to which the provisions of clause (6) apply, or (b) the provisions of any law which the State may hereafter make-(i) for the purpose of imposing or levying any tax or penalty, or (ii) for the promotion of public health or the prevention of danger to life or property, or (iii) in pursuance of any agreement entered into between the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India and the Government of any other country, or otherwise, with respect to property declared by law to be evacuee property. (6) Any law of the State enacted not more than eighteen months before the commencement of this Constitution may within three months from such commencement be submitted to the President for his certification; and thereupon, if the President by public notification so certifies, it shall not be called in question in any court on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of clause (2) of this article or has contravened the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2999 of the Government of India Act, 1935. "Section 4 of State Land- Acquisition Act (1990): Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon. Whenever laXd in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose the Collector shall notify it- (a) through a public notice to be affixed at convenient places in the said locality and shall also cause it to be known by beat of drum and through the local Panchayats and Patwaries; (b) in the Government Gazette (c) in two daily newspapers having largest circulation in the said locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language. (2) After the Collector has notified any land in the manner prescribed in clause (a) of sub-section (1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorized by the Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen, to enter upon and survey and levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore into the sub-soil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adopted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to make such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed, and the levels taken and the boundaries and lines marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle: Provided that, no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house (unless with the consent of the occupier hereof) without previously giving such occupier at least (ten days) notice in writing of his intention to do so." "The State Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1997 2. Amendment of section 4, Act X of Samvat 1990-Clause (c of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the State Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act'), shall be renumbered as clause (b) and the existing clause (b) shall be omitted." 7. Right to acquire, hold and possess the property continues to be a fundamental right in the state of J&K, guaranteed under article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India as the same is still applicable to the state. Article 31(1) provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no property shall be, compulsorily, acquired or requisitioned save for the public purpose and save by the authority of law, which also provides for payment of compensation for the property so acquired or requisitioned. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 8. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 8. To acquire, hold and possess property is one of the basic human instincts. It constitutes one of the natural rights of an individual. This right has assumed the shape of fundamental right. Article 31 of the Constitution of India, which, as already stated, is still applicable to the state of J&K, provides for denuding an individual of his rights over the property but while doing so, some restrictions on the power of the state have been imposed. The fundamental right to acquire, hold and possess property can be taken away, but for that the State/competent authority has to strictly adhere and comply with the mandate contained in article 31 of the Constitution of India. The 'Act' confers authority on the State and the Collector to deprive a person of his immoveable property. However, it provides mechanism and method for, compulsorily, acquiring the immoveable property of an individual. In the backdrop of the constitutional guarantees available to a person to acquire, hold and possess the property, when recourse is to be had to the provisions of the 'Act', then strict compliance thereof becomes imperative. The action of the State and its authorities in, compulsorily, acquiring the immoveable property of an individual, is of extra ordinary nature and cannot be equated with other actions of the State and its functionaries or of any statutory authority. By issuing notification u/s 4(1) of the 'Act', the intention of the Government and its authorities about initiating action for, compulsorily, acquiring immoveable property, mentioned therein, is conveyed to the owner of the property. The manner and method, in which this intention has to be notified, has to be strictly construed and faithfully followed. Notification u/s 4(1) of the 'Act' has to be issued strictly in the manner which is provided by the said provision of the 'Act'. The manner and method, in which this intention has to be notified, has to be strictly construed and faithfully followed. Notification u/s 4(1) of the 'Act' has to be issued strictly in the manner which is provided by the said provision of the 'Act'. The strict compliance with section 4(1) of the 'Act' assumes further importance as in terms of section 4(2) of the 'Act', an officer, servant and workman is authorized to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality and this power of entering upon others land can be exercised only after the Collector would notify any land in the manner prescribed in clause (a) sub section (1) of section 4 of the 'Act'. In other words, if the notification u/s 4(1) of the 'Act' is not notified in the manner as provided in clause (a), it will not be lawful for any officer to enter upon the land. The officers or workers or servants are lawfully authorized to enter upon'the land of an individual when there is complete compliance with section 4(1) (a) of the 'Act'. This section assumes importance in this backdrop also. Non compliance with section 4(1) of the 'Act', thus, cannot be brushed aside by stating that no prejudice would be caused to the land owners when they have filed objections and have, thus, information about publication of the notice. The compliance to section 4(1)(a) of the 'Act' is inherent in the scheme of 'Act', because only thereafter an officer would have right to enter upon land of an individual. 9. Having held so, it now requires to be ascertained as to whether there has been breach of section 4(1) of the 'Act'. In the writ petition, specific stand is taken by the appellants, when notification u/s 4(1) of the 'Act' is challenged that "it was not published as required by law by affixing the same in conspicuous places and by beating of drum in the concerned locality. There was no publication in the news papers having circulation in the area either." The respondents, in their objections at paragraph (6), have specifically dealt with the aforementioned plea of the appellants, when it has been stated that "the notification dated 14-11-2009 issued u/s 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act has been duly published in the news papers having wide circulation. There was no publication in the news papers having circulation in the area either." The respondents, in their objections at paragraph (6), have specifically dealt with the aforementioned plea of the appellants, when it has been stated that "the notification dated 14-11-2009 issued u/s 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act has been duly published in the news papers having wide circulation. Besides this, the notice stands duly affixed at conspicuous places in the locality as required and has been given wide publicity. It is further submitted that Khasra number, name of the village and area under acquisition, stand duly reflected in the notification and the names of the owners have also been duly published in the notice issued u/s 9, 9(a) of the 'Act'." Nothing has been brought on the writ record by the appellants that the stand so taken by the respondents is not correct. In view of the stand so taken by the respondents, it is held that there has been compliance with section 4(1) of the 'Act' on the part of the respondents. The challenge thrown to the said notification, thus, does not survive. 10. The observation made by the learned writ Court at paragraph 20 of the impugned judgement supra that after hearing the appellants-writ petitioners in support of the objections and after framing report containing recommendations of the Collector shall be submitted to the Government and the decision then taken by the Government "shall be binding on the petitioners", is unsustainable as by making such an observation, the rights available to the writ petitioners-appellants in law to take remedial steps for challenging such decisions in accordance with law, have been foreclosed and taken away. The right to challenge action of the Government and its authorities in accordance with law is not only a recognized legal and constitutional right but is one of the basis human rights of an individual. The Courts cannot take away a right which is otherwise conferred on an individual either by Constitution, by the Statute and by common law. The Courts do not legislate laws. The aforementioned observation of the learned single Judge is held to be not in consonance with the settled principles of law and is set aside and shall be deemed to be not part of the impugned judgement. The Courts do not legislate laws. The aforementioned observation of the learned single Judge is held to be not in consonance with the settled principles of law and is set aside and shall be deemed to be not part of the impugned judgement. The observation made by the learned single Judge that anything said by him in the impugned judgement shall not prevent the respondents in taking recourse to section 17 of the 'Act', if so required, does not tantamount to issuance of a positive direction to the respondents for necessarily taking recourse to section 17 of the 'Act'. It is only an observation. The respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may or may not take recourse to section 17 of the 'Act'. The observation, thus, does not affect any of the legal rights of the appellants. 11. For the above stated reasons, the impugned judgement is modified in the manner provided hereinabove and the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of along with connected CMPs.