Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 219 (JK)

Kuldeep Singh v. State Of J&K

2014-05-28

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2014
1. By this common judgment, I propose to decide and dispose of the above seven writ petitions, founded on, somewhat, common material facts, having been clubbed and heard together, and the two contempt petitions filed by the rival parties. Of course there are numerous civil miscellaneous petitions filed by the rival parties connected with their petitions which will naturally abide the ultimate decision. 2. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the basic question which has been raised in these petitions is that the acquisition of the land has lapsed on account of non-passing of award within the period of two years prescribed in Section 11-B of the State Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), but the rival pleadings of the parties also contain such issues and, of course, arguments were also advanced at the Bar by the respective counsels on such points as fall beyond the contours of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court as well as the pale of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petitions. It is the admitted position that there is civil litigation pending in the Civil Court between the parties pertaining to the land in question. Therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to advert to any of the pleadings made by the parties, or arguments advanced at the Bar, which is unconnected with the basic question raised in these petitions, lest it should cause prejudice to either of the parties in the pursuit or defence of the civil litigation. However, narration of some background facts becomes imperative. 3. On 11.01.2003, the Sainik Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Jammu, through its Chairman, made an application before the Collector, Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, stating therein, inter alia, that the Government pursuant to notification no. RD 33 of 1970 dated 16.03.1970 read with notification no. RD-204 of 1990 issued under endorsement no. Ref. Rev(LAB) 62/88 dated 03.12.1990 and notification no. 1.A/747-48 dated 19.12.1973 had acquired about 510 acres (precisely 4312 Kanals & 17 Marlas) of land in villages Sunjwan and Chowadi of Tehsil and District Jammu for the aforesaid Society for setting up of a housing colony for about 4000 families of defence personnel, and handed over the same to the Society. Ref. Rev(LAB) 62/88 dated 03.12.1990 and notification no. 1.A/747-48 dated 19.12.1973 had acquired about 510 acres (precisely 4312 Kanals & 17 Marlas) of land in villages Sunjwan and Chowadi of Tehsil and District Jammu for the aforesaid Society for setting up of a housing colony for about 4000 families of defence personnel, and handed over the same to the Society. In the aforesaid application, the Society claimed that all the adjoining Khasra numbers were included in the notification issued by the Government, but, due to inadvertence, Khasra numbers 772 and 773 were left over. The Society stated that half of the land was a Khad passing through the centre and that since 1971, after taking over possession of the land, it levelled the land, constructed roads, culverts, raised buttress walls, developed plots and allotted the same to its members which includes the two Khasra numbers 772 and 773. It further stated that even houses and plinths have been raised on the land in question. On account of overall development around the area, certain land grabbers are claiming ownership of the land comprised in these two Khasra nos. 772 and 773 on the plea that the same was not awarded to the Society and, thereby are trying to encroach upon the land of the Society in connivance with the revenue officials and police, which has given rise to tension on the spot. The Society, accordingly, vide the aforesaid application, requested the Collector, Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, that the land in question is urgently required for public purpose and made the following prayers therein: "i. That the land comprising in Khasra Number 772 and 773 situated at Sainik Colony, Jammu be acquired in accordance with law for public purposes; ii. Restraining non-applicant No.1 and 2 not to interfere with the land in question as the same falls within the Sainik Co-operative House Building Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act for the welfare of the sainiks; iii. Further, directing the Revenue Officers of the concerned Halqua not to enter any mutation or issue any fard with regard to Khasra No.772 and 733 situated at Sainik Colony, Jammu." The claims made in the aforesaid application and the prayers made therein were contested by several persons, namely, Amrik Singh, Shanker Singh, Kuldip Singh, Major Apil Khajuria, Sunil Khajuria, his mother and sisters etc. However, finally, on the consent of the private parties claiming ownership of the land, the Collector, Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, passed order dated 16.07.2006 to the following effect: "Therefore, in view of foregoing observations, the petition for acquisition of land in question comprising Kh. No. 772 and 773 situated at village Sunjwan Tehsil Jammu for Sainik Cooperative House Building Society Jammu is accordingly accepted with the further direction to the Collector, Land Acquisition, Assistant Commissioner (R), Jammu, to acquire the subject land strictly under the provisions of J&K State Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 and Rules framed thereunder, however, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned." It may be relevant to mention here that in the aforesaid order, the Collector, Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, also mentioned as under: "Regarding subject land the notification under section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act Svt. 1990 was also issued on 4.1.1988 by Collector Land Acquisition Assistant Commissioner (R), Jammu of the time. As per the other notification No. 60-RD of 1989 dated 29.1.1989 issued under Section 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act the Collector Land Acquisition Assistant Commissioner (R), Jammu of the time was directed by the Revenue Department to acquire the land falling under Kh. No.773 (279 Kls 12 Mls) at village Sunjwan Tehsil Jammu for construction of Sainik House Building Society Ltd." As mentioned in the order itself, the land had later on been de-notified. The facts narrated above are contained in the detailed order dated 16.07.2006 passed by the Collector, Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, on the aforesaid application of the Society. 4. Pursuant to the above, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act with respect to 156 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra nos. 772 (44 Kanals, 04 Marla) and 773 (112 kanals, 08 Marlas) was issued on 31.05.2006. 5. It appears that with the issuance of the aforesaid notification dated 31.05.2006 and before declaring the land under Section 6 of the Act, Kuldeep Singh, the writ petitioner in the first above two writ petitions, filed writ petition, OWP no.932/2006, claiming therein the respondents had initiated acquisition proceedings and acquired his land measuring 60 Kanals, 10 Marlas falling under Khasra nos. 773/Min and 772/Min situated at village Sunjwan, Jammu, but they had not passed the award till filing of the petition and prayed that the respondents be directed to complete acquisition proceedings and pass final award as early as possible. It may be mentioned here that the writ petitioner, Kuldeep Singh, claimed that he had purchased the aforesaid 60 Kanals, 10 Marlas of land falling under Khasra nos.773/Min and 772/Min in the year 2001. The writ petition was disposed of, seemingly on the very first day, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2006 with direction that "if respondent no.2 (therein) has initiated acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioner, he shall concluded the same within three months from the date copy of the order is served upon him". It hardly needs to be mentioned here that Section 11-B inserted by the Amendment Act No. IV of 1997 in the Act mandated that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award was made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse. Be that as it may, Notifications under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act were issued on 25.05.2007 and under Sections 9 and 9-A on 07.06.2007. 6. Meanwhile, six persons, claiming to be the members of the Society, filed a writ petition, OWP no. 1115/2007, titled Sobadar Shiv Nath Mengi & others v. State of J&K & others challenging the aforesaid acquisition proceedings of land measuring 156 Kanals and 12 Marlas initiated at the instance of the Society. Their claim in the writ petition, briefly put, was that the said land stands already acquired by the Society and was in its possession for decades. 7. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, OWP no. 1115/2005, and after issuance of notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the writ petitioner, Kuldeep Singh, filed yet another writ petition, OWP no. 159/2008, seeking, inter alia, quashing of notification dated 02.06.2006 issued by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Assistant Commissioner (R), Jammu, under Section 4(1) of the Act, on the ground that the respondents had failed to complete the acquisition proceedings. 8. The aforesaid two writ petitions, OWP no.1115/2007 (filed by members of the Society) and OWP no. 159/2008, seeking, inter alia, quashing of notification dated 02.06.2006 issued by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Assistant Commissioner (R), Jammu, under Section 4(1) of the Act, on the ground that the respondents had failed to complete the acquisition proceedings. 8. The aforesaid two writ petitions, OWP no.1115/2007 (filed by members of the Society) and OWP no. 159/2008 (filed by the writ petitioner in the first above two writ petitions) came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court on one and the same day, i.e., 17.03.2010, but separately. The Court, vide order dated 17.03.2010, dismissed as not maintainable the writ petition, OWP no. 1115/2007, holding as under: "Keeping in view the above facts and the acquisition proceedings drawn in the year 1970 read with application made by respondent no.4, the inquiry conducted and the orders passed by Collector-respondent no.3, it is prima facie established that the land falling under Khasra nos. 772-min and 733-min (later modified vide order dated 12.04.2010 passed in CMP no. 18/2010 from 733-min to 773-min) were not the subject matter of acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1970 and, thereafter, the acquisition proceedings came to be drawn at the request of respondent no.4. The petitioners have no right, interest or title to challenge the acquisition proceedings, because they are claiming right, interest, title, if any, through the Society-respondent No.4." OWP no. 159/2008, filed by the writ petitioner, Kuldeep Singh, was also dismissed on the same day, viz. 17.03.2010, by the Court holding as under: "OWP no. 1115/2007 came to be dismissed today by a separate order. It appears that due to interim direction passed by this Court vide order dated 15.1.2008 in OWP no. 1115/2007 the acquisition proceedings were not taken to its logical end. Thus, the delay crept in cannot be attributed to official respondents 1 to 3. It is also apt to mention herein that notification under Section 4 came to be issued on 2.5.2006 (Annexure `B' to OWP no. 1115/2007) for the land measuring 156.12 kanals. In the writ petition in hand the petitioner had sought quashment of only 60 kanals of land, while as notification is for 156.12 kanals of land. Viewed thus, the said facts cannot be made basis for quashment of acquisition proceedings. However, keeping in view the above said facts the official respondent-Collector Land Acquisition is directed to conclude the proceedings within six months from today." 9. Viewed thus, the said facts cannot be made basis for quashment of acquisition proceedings. However, keeping in view the above said facts the official respondent-Collector Land Acquisition is directed to conclude the proceedings within six months from today." 9. It also needs to be mentioned here that the Society challenged the order dated 20.12.2006 passed in writ petition, OWP no.932/2006, filed by the writ petitioner, Kuldeep Singh, in LPA no.43/2010 accompanied by a condonation petition, which was dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 04.11.2010, observing that "during the course of hearing it transpired that the appellant Society itself had sought acquisition of the property in question finding that the land over which it claimed its right, had neither been earlier acquired nor transferred to it by the Government". 10. Thereafter, the Society challenged the aforesaid order dated 04.11.2010 passed by the Division Bench in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil Nos. 33649-33652/2010) before the Supreme Court, which were dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 10.12.2010, quoted hereunder: "This petition is directed against order dated 4.11.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the petitioner's prayer for condonation of delay of 1228 days delay in filing the letters patent appeal was rejected and the letters patent appeal was dismissed. After arguing the case for some time, Shri Vinod Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to pursue the civil suits already filed by it. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the special leave petitions are dismissed in terms of the prayer made. It is needless to say that withdrawal of the special leave petitions shall not prejudice the cause of either party in the pending suits." 11. Coming back to the acquisition proceedings initiated at the instance of the Society, on 19.04.2007. the Collector, Assistant Commissioner, Jammu addressed letter No. LA/ ACR/Sainik/Coop/2007 to the Chairman, Sainik Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., informing him that in view of the location of land and other factors enumerated under the Land Acquisition Act Svt. 1990 the tentative rate of Rs. Coming back to the acquisition proceedings initiated at the instance of the Society, on 19.04.2007. the Collector, Assistant Commissioner, Jammu addressed letter No. LA/ ACR/Sainik/Coop/2007 to the Chairman, Sainik Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., informing him that in view of the location of land and other factors enumerated under the Land Acquisition Act Svt. 1990 the tentative rate of Rs. 3,00,000,00 per Kanal seemed genuine and reasonable, however, subject to approval from the competent authority, and requested him to deposit 80% of the estimated cost of land tentatively @ Rs.3,00,000.00 per Kanal with the Collect orate within a week's time. 12. In response to the aforesaid communication, the Society addressed letter dated 15.05.2007 to the Collector, Land Acquisition. Assistant Commissioner (R), Jammu, wherein, it, inter alia, laid the claim of adverse possession against the owners with respect to the land in question and, among other things, informed him as under: "VIII. The indent was placed on the directions of the Dy. Commissioner, Jammu but so far no revenue officer has identified the land which is alleged to be in the possession of the Society out of Kh. Nos. 772 and 773 within the acquired area of 4198 kanal 15 marlas. Unless and until this is not clarified by the Revenue Authorities, this indent may please be kept in abeyance. However, if it is proved that some land out of Kh. No. 772 and 773 is lying within our controlled area, then it will mean that the same is in our possession since 1970 and we have allotted the land and developed the area and the rate paid at the, time alongwith interest till date is only acceptable to the Society and not the rate which you have conveyed." (Underlining supplied) 13. After the court order dated 17.03.2010 passed in OWP no. 159/2008, whereby the official respondent. Collector Land Acquisition, was directed to conclude the proceedings within six months, the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, addressed communication dated 05.08.2010 to the Secretary of the Society, which is extracted below: "In this connection, I am to say that Collector Land Acquisition has been initiating the acquisition proceedings in the instant case under the directions of Hon'ble High Court, J&K, Jammu. It is to intimate you that Collector Land Acquisition concerned has placed the case before the Committee of Collectors on 02.08.2010 for the approval of rates. It is to intimate you that Collector Land Acquisition concerned has placed the case before the Committee of Collectors on 02.08.2010 for the approval of rates. The Committee after much deliberation has approved a rate of Rs.20.00 lacs per Kanal of the subject land situated at village Sunjwan Tehsil & District Jammu being residential area. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.36,01,80,000/-(Rupees 31,32,00,000/- land compensation + Rs.4,69,80,00/- Jabrana @ 15%. It is as such requested that an amount of Rs. 36, 01,80,000/- may kindly be deposited in this office within 10 days positively so that further acquisition proceedings can be initiated under rules in the matter." 14. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Assistant Commissioner (Rev), Jammu also prepared the draft award and submitted the same to the Deputy Commissioner under endorsement dated 15.10.2010. However, in the penultimate paragraph thereof, the Collector recorded as under: "But, here a specific point is brought to his kind notice that according to the letter of the Chairman dated 4.7.2010, the present market rate of the land at Rs.20.00 lacs per Kanal is out of reach of the members of the Society to whom the land has been allotted by them on their own (having no legal right therein) at Rs. 2800/- per kanal. They have not otherwise placed the amount of compensation determined in this case at the disposal of the Collector despite lapse of time indicated by the Deputy Commissioner in his letter dated 25.8.2010. This clearly shows that the Society is not now in favour of the acquisition of this land. When this is so, it may not be desirable to proceed further with the acquisition proceedings. That's why necessary certificates including availability of funds etc. have not been spelt out in this draft award. Not only this, even land is required to be properly de-notified. It is requested that this aspect of the matter max also kindly be taken into consideration and this case for de-notification of declaration issued under section 6 and 7 be recommended to the Revenue Department. When this is done, de-notification of the acquisition proceedings initiated under section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act would also be issued simultaneously." 15. It is requested that this aspect of the matter max also kindly be taken into consideration and this case for de-notification of declaration issued under section 6 and 7 be recommended to the Revenue Department. When this is done, de-notification of the acquisition proceedings initiated under section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act would also be issued simultaneously." 15. Consequent upon the above, the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, addressed communication dated 28.10.2010 to the Divisional Commissioner, bringing all these facts to his notice and requested him that the matter may be taken up with the Revenue Department for the de-notification of the declaration issued by them under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. 16. Above are the pruned, relevant facts in the background of which the present writ petitions have been filed. 17. Now, coming to the instant writ petitions and the reliefs prayed for therein: writ petition. OWP no.449/2010 has been filed with, among others the prayer that respondents be directed to demolish all the super structures exiting in survey nos. 772-min and 773-min; the Government be directed to remove the Electric Sub-station with all its infrastructure from the land in survey no.772; and that respondents be directed not to interfere in the land comprised in the two survey nos. Few of the facts mentioned in the petition need a specific mention. It is stated that the petitioner acquired land measuring 60 Kanals and 10 marlas comprised in survey nos. 772 and 773 situated in village Sunjwan. Tehsil and District Jammu, under valid and proper sale deeds in June 2001. The petitioner is the owner of the land and in its possession. The land stands mutated in his name. In paragraph 3 of the petition, the following specific averments are made: "That the position of the land on spot is as under: a) That in Survey No.772 the petitioner owns 25 kanals of land. The petitioner is the owner of the land and in its possession. The land stands mutated in his name. In paragraph 3 of the petition, the following specific averments are made: "That the position of the land on spot is as under: a) That in Survey No.772 the petitioner owns 25 kanals of land. The position of these 25 kanals of land has been ascertained by the Revenue Authorities to be as follows: i) Gair Mumkin Nalla : 8 Kanals ii) Sadak(Road) : 3 kanal 2marlas iii) Vacant Land : 3 kanal 6 marlas iv) Sainik School : 7 kanal 7 marlas v) Grid Station (Elec) : 3 Kanal 5 marlas b) The position of the land comprised in survey No. 773 measuring 35 kanals and 10 marlas, on spot, as ascertained by the Revenue Authorities is as follows: i) House (enclosed on all sides) : 1 kanal 8 marlas ii) Sadak (road) : 2 kanal 13 marlas iii) Shops : 1 kanal 5 marlas iv) Vacant land : 29 kanal 16 marlas v) Land enclosed : 8 marlas." It is averred in the petition that the land comprised in survey nos. 772 and 773 was not part of the acquisition; that the land under these survey numbers was therefore, available for sale and the petitioner, acting on the records of the Revenue Department and the acquisition, purchased 60 kanals and 10 marlas of land in these two survey numbers way back in June, 2001; that the respondent no. 4 (the Society) without any basis and in contravention of law started asserting that the land which fell under survey nos. 772 and 773 was part of acquisition and that in 1970s, when respondent no. 4 was provided the acquired land, the land comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers was also provided to them. In paragraph 8 of the petition, it is stated that respondent no.4, proceeding on the basis that the land comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers was part of the acquired land, started using some portions of the land in contravention of law. The paragraph mentions the use of the land by respondent no.4 in the manner as specified in paragraph 3 of the petition quoted above. The paragraph mentions the use of the land by respondent no.4 in the manner as specified in paragraph 3 of the petition quoted above. Relying on the facts enumerated in this judgment hereinabove the petitioner has made the prayers as stated above on the grounds that the Society could not acquire land of its own; that land comprised in survey nos. 772 and 773 was not acquired by the Government: that it has been held by the Court that land comprised in the said two survey numbers had not been acquired; that six months' time had been granted to the Collector to complete the proceedings; that the land has been demarcated on the spot by a team of Government officers; that the Society could not allot the land not acquired for it by the Government; that as per report of the Team of Revenue Authorities land of the petitioner has been utilized by the Society and Government for Sainik School, Electric Sub-station, roads, shops etc. 18. Respondent no. 4 in its objections to the writ petition, apart from challenging the validity of the sale deeds in terms of the provisions of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007 and the Revenue Laws, the land being Gair mumkin Khad, has stated that the petitioner is attempting to take possession of the land which has been acquired by the answering respondents through proper acquisition proceedings in the year 1970, compensation stands deposited and the colony has been developed after the possession of land acquired was handed over to the Society. It is averred that the Society has challenged the sale deeds in question in civil suits which are pending in the curt of 1st Additional Munsiff, Jammu. It is stated that the land alleged to have been acquired by the petitioner has not been demarcated on the spot. It is specifically pleaded in paragraph 9 that in Khasra no. 773, out of 279 kanals 121 kanals are in possession of private land holders and the remaining 158 kanals of Gairmumkin Khad have a already been acquired by respondent no. 4; whereas in Khasra no. 772, 89 kanals of Gairmumkin Khad have been acquired and the total land is in its possession. Respondent no. 4 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 19. Another writ petition, OWP no. 4; whereas in Khasra no. 772, 89 kanals of Gairmumkin Khad have been acquired and the total land is in its possession. Respondent no. 4 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 19. Another writ petition, OWP no. 14/2011, filed by the same petitioner, seeks the relief of declaring that the acquisition proceedings initiated the Collector in respect of 60 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land belonging to the petitioner comprised in survey Nos. 772 and 773 situated in village Sunjwan vide notifications dated 31.05.2006 and 25.05.2007, as having, lapsed. 20. OWP no.78/2011 has been filed by the Society seeking quashment of notification no. 56 RD of 2007 dated 25.05.2007 issued under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is, inter alia, stated in the petition are that the Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, vide his order dated 11.11.2008 reported that the then Collector, Land Acquisition, Assistant Commissioner (R), Jammu, had held that the land under acquisition is under the actual possession of the Society since 1970. Therefore, it is pleaded that there was no question of acquiring the said land now. 21. Writ petitions, OWP nos. 185/2011, 588/2011, OWP no. 487/2013, and OWP no. 1554/2013 filed by other persons claiming to be owners of parcels of the said land, seek almost identical reliefs to declare the acquisition proceedings as lapsed and the respondents be directed to remove the structures from their respective lands. 22. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and considered the matter. 23. As already mentioned at the beginning of this judgment, counsel for the parties have advanced such arguments as fall beyond the scope of the prayers made in these petitions as well as the jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, there are counter claims as to the possession of the land and its demarcation. Record also reveals that the Society had filed a civil suit before the Sub-Registrar (Khas), Munsiff, Jammu, on 29.04.2008, seeking the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants Kuldeep Singh, Sunil Khajuria, Amrik Singh and Rattan Parkash, from interfering in the Society's peaceful possession over the land measuring more than 4000 kanals comprising various Khasra numbers, including the land falling under Khasra nos. 772 and 773, inter alia, on the plea of adverse possession against the defendants. 772 and 773, inter alia, on the plea of adverse possession against the defendants. In that suit, it appears that the learned trial court vide order dated 29.04.2008 temporarily restrained the defendants therein from interfering with the land. However, by the subsequent exhaustive order dated 14.07.2009, after considering the objections and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial court ordered that the interim injunction order will have no bearing with the land in Khasra nos. 772 and 773. Nonetheless, the suit filed by the Society is pending and it was stated at the Bar that an appeal filed against the aforesaid order is also pending before the appellate court. 24. Records also reveal that the Society has further filed four other declaratory suits challenging the sale deeds - one against Amar Singh, Rattan Parkash and Kuldeep Singh; the second against Naveen Chander, Pritam Singh and Kuldeep Singh; the third against Vijay Kumar, Rattan Parkash and Kuldeep Singh and the fourth against Mohan Lal, Rattan Parkash and Kuldeep Singh, which are pending before 1st Addl. Munsiff (Forest) Jammu, wherein the trial court has passed orders of status quo on 05.06.2010. 25. Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel, accompanied by other counsels, appearing for the writ petitions argued on the following lines: i) that once it is established that the petitioners are owners of the land which has never been acquired and in respect of which acquisition proceedings were initiated and ultimately recommended for de-notification, the Society cannot claim any right in the aforesaid land; ii) that the Hon'ble Court has already ruled that the land of the petitioners has not been acquired for the Society; iii) that the Society cannot claim any possessory right over the land, since the same has not been acquired by the Government for purpose of the Society at any stage; iv) that the stand taken by the private and official respondents, that no sale in respect of the land or its transfer could take place in view of the provisions of Section 20-B and 21 of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act or the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, is wholly untenable. 26. 26. Given the fact that the Society has filed civil suits against the petitioners, amongst others, challenging the sale deeds and/or the ownership and/or possession of the petitioners over the land, it would not be proper for this Court to go into these arguments advanced by the learned counsel or make any comment thereon. And, in any case, disputed facts cannot be gone into by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The arguments advanced and the disputes underlying thereto fall purely within the civil domain; hence beyond the jurisdiction of this Court in the present proceedings. This Court in these proceedings cannot determine the questions of possession, recovery and delivery of possession, validity of the sale deeds and the rights of the parties in the land in question etc. Such questions can be gone into, determined and decided only by the civil courts in civil suits. Consequently, this Court also cannot pass any order of eviction against the Society from the land which is admitted to be in its possession. As a necessary corollary, reliefs sought for requiring the respondents to remove and pull down their respective structures, of whatever nature, cannot be granted by this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. That being the legal position, writ petition, OWP no. 499/2010, and other connected writ petitions, to the extent of such relief prayed for therein, merit dismissal. 27. The real issue raised in these petitions, as already mentioned, concerns whether the acquisition proceeding has lapsed and in this connection, Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 10 SCC 344 , submitted that the acquisition has lapsed on account of non-passing of the award within the period prescribed under Section 11-B of the Act. To buttress this argument, the learned counsels also cited and relied upon the orders of the Court dated 20.12.2006 and 17.03.2010 passed in OWP nos. 932/2006 and 159/2008, respectively, whereby the respondents were directed to complete the acquisition proceedings within three months and six months, respectively. 28. To buttress this argument, the learned counsels also cited and relied upon the orders of the Court dated 20.12.2006 and 17.03.2010 passed in OWP nos. 932/2006 and 159/2008, respectively, whereby the respondents were directed to complete the acquisition proceedings within three months and six months, respectively. 28. It may be observed that Section 11-B of the Act provides as under: "The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration 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." A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it mandatory for the Collector to make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration. The provision of law further provides that if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse. This, of course, is also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra). However, in the Explanation appended to the aforesaid provision of law, it is provided that 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. 29. In the instant case, the declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was published in terms of notifications dated 25.05.2007. The period of two years prescribed under Section 11-B of the Act, after the declaration issued under section 6 of the Act on 25.05.2007, would expire on 24.05.2009. However, as noted in Court order dated 17.03.2010, the acquisition proceedings could not be taken to its logical end due to interim direction dated 15.1.2008 passed in OWP no.1115/2007. That means there was a stay on the proceedings operative from 15.01.2008. However, as noted in Court order dated 17.03.2010, the acquisition proceedings could not be taken to its logical end due to interim direction dated 15.1.2008 passed in OWP no.1115/2007. That means there was a stay on the proceedings operative from 15.01.2008. The writ petition, OWP no.1115/2007, itself was dismissed on 17.03.2010. In this view of the matter, the period between 15.01.2008 to 24.05.2009, which comes to 16 months and 9 days, in terms of the Explanation appended to the Section 11-B would have to be excluded while computing the period of two years. In other words, the period of 16 months and 9 days, during which period there was a stay in operation, would have to be counted from the date the stay was vacated, i.e., from 17.03.2010. Counting the period of 16 months and 9 days from 17.03.2010, the period of two years prescribed under Section 11-B of the Act would extend approximately upto 26.07.2011. Naturally, therefore, the acquisition proceedings in terms of the provision of Section 11-B of the Act would stand lapsed after this date, viz. 26.07.2011. 30. It is seen that writ petition, OWP no.14/2011, OWP no.185/2011 and OWP no. 588/2011 with the relief that the proceedings initiated by the Collector had elapsed, have been filed prematurely on 10.01.2011, 14.02.2011 and 29.04.2011, respectively. However, this fact is inconsequential in view of the fact that the acquisition proceedings, in terms of Section 11-B of the Act, would lapse automatically after the period of two years prescribed under the provision of the law. 31. Coming to the writ petition, OWP no.78/2011, seeking quashing of the notifications issued under sections 6 and 7 of the Act on the ground that the land in question is in their possession, it is curious to note that the acquisition proceedings were initiated at their request. Now, if the Society does not want the Collector to proceed ahead with the acquisition proceedings, what has prevented it from making an application to the Collector, Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, to de-notify the land, on whatever grounds. It is not comprehendible as to who has hobbled the Society in that behalf. In any case, the acquisition proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the Society; they cannot have a grievance against the notifications issued by the Collector, Land Acquisition. The wavering and indefinite stances taken by the Society speaks loud of its conduct. It is not comprehendible as to who has hobbled the Society in that behalf. In any case, the acquisition proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the Society; they cannot have a grievance against the notifications issued by the Collector, Land Acquisition. The wavering and indefinite stances taken by the Society speaks loud of its conduct. Be that as it may, the acquisition proceedings having been initiated at their instance, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by it to quash the notifications in question. The writ petition merits dismissal. It has otherwise become infructuous on account of the fact that the acquisition proceedings have already lapsed automatically. 32. Now, the fact of the matter is that the draft award has been prepared on 15.10.2010, i.e., within the period of two years. I am conscious, it has not been announced. While submitting the draft award to the Collector, Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, the Collector, Assistant Commissioner (R) has, on the basis of the conduct of the Society, written that it clearly shows that the Society is not now in favour of the acquisition of this land. The Deputy Commissioner, in turn, vide his communication no. DCJ / LHS / ACQ / JMU / SHBS / Sunj - AoR - 146/92 dated 28.10.2010 has recommended to the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, that the land be de-notified. The Society, i.e., the indenting agency has shown its reluctance to pay the amount of compensation as determined by the Collector. In fact, the Society seems to have changed its stance and are claiming adverse possession. It is also a fact that the award has not been formally passed within the period of two years from the date of declaration and, therefore, the lapse of the acquisition proceedings, in terms of the mandate of Section 11-B of the Act, is automatic. 33. Now, the question is whether by reason of the fact of the acquisition proceedings having automatically lapsed, this Court can pass any further consequential direction? The answer has to be in negative, because of pendency of civil suits as well as on account of the fact that this Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot determine the disputed questions of possession, ownership and the other allied issues involved in these petitions. 34. In light of all what has been discussed above, writ petition nos. The answer has to be in negative, because of pendency of civil suits as well as on account of the fact that this Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot determine the disputed questions of possession, ownership and the other allied issues involved in these petitions. 34. In light of all what has been discussed above, writ petition nos. 14/2011, 185/2011, 588/2011, 487/2013 and 1554/2013 are allowed to the extent that it is held that the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to notification dated 04.01.1988 issued by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Assistant Commissioner (R), Jammu, with respect to land measuring 156 Kanals and 12 Marlas comprised in Khasra nos. 772 (44 Kanals, 04 Marla) and 773 (112 kanals, 08 Marlas) situated at village Sunjwan, Tehsil and District Jammu, have automatically lapsed in terms of the mandate of Section 11-B of the Act. As already held, no other relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners in these proceedings by this Court for the reasons recorded above. Therefore, the writ petitions with respect to the other reliefs are dismissed. 35. The writ petition, OWP no. 449/2010, filed by the petitioner Kuldeep Singh, is dismissed for the reasons detailed in this judgment. Similarly, the writ petition, OWP no. 78/2011, filed by the Society, is dismissed, too, as being without any merit and having been rendered infructuous for the reasons recorded above. 36. All CMPs connected the respective writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of Interim directions, if any, subsisting in any of the petitions shall stand vacated. 37. In so far as Contempt Petition nos. 5/2011 and 9/2011 and the CMP nos. 26/ 2011 and 271/2011 connected therewith are concerned, the same, in light of the above decision in the connected writ petitions, are disposed of.