Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 415 (JK)

Bashir Ahmad Shah v. State of J & K

2015-08-14

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ali Mohd. Magrey, J. 1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the same set of petitioners one after the other. They were licensees of the shops located in a building belonging to the Government Estates Department situated at Magarmal Bagh, Srinagar, abreast the General Road, namely, Jehangir-Chowk - Indira Gandhi Airport Road. This is borne out by the orders issued by Deputy Director, Estates, Kashmir, Srinagar, in the years 2012 and 2013, copies whereof have been appended to SWP No. 156/2013, as Annexures A1 to A6. The building, having come in the alignment of the Project, Jehangir-Chowk - Ram Bagh Expressway (Flyover) Corridor, being executed by Jammu and Kashmir Reconstruction Agency (for short, ERA) which is funded by Asian Development Bank (ADB), is required to be demolished. The construction of Expressway (Flyover) Corridor has been perceived to be one of the most important projects of general public importance and interest in the city of Srinagar. The petitioners were promised rehabilitation and allotment of accommodation in a building constructed by ERA for the purpose just opposite to the High Court Complex at an equally prime location, i.e., the nook of the Exhibition Ground, popularly known as Exhibition Crossing or Jehangir Chowk, situated not more than 300 metres or so from the petitioners' present business site. The facts underlying the claim of the petitioners are briefly stated. The shops in question housed in the building owner by the Government Estates Department, were allotted to the petitioners as licencees in the years 2012 and 2013 subject to the conditions mentioned in their respective orders, which included the condition that the 'allottee shall execute the necessary licence deed with the Department within 15 days positively'. Prior to the issuance of such orders by the Deputy Director, Estates, Kashmir, Srinagar, the Collector, Land Acquisition, ERA, Kashmir, on 29.04.2010 published a notice in a local daily, purportedly, issued in exercise of the powers vested in him under Sub-Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990, notifying that the lands falling within the two terminals of the proposed Flyover Expressway, particulars whereof were delineated therein, were needed for public purpose, namely, for construction of Flyover Expressway Corridor from Jehangir Chowk to Ram Bagh. Objections were invited to the proposed acquisition of the said lands alongwith structures standing thereon. 2. 1990, notifying that the lands falling within the two terminals of the proposed Flyover Expressway, particulars whereof were delineated therein, were needed for public purpose, namely, for construction of Flyover Expressway Corridor from Jehangir Chowk to Ram Bagh. Objections were invited to the proposed acquisition of the said lands alongwith structures standing thereon. 2. Though the land appurtenant to and underneath the aforesaid Estates building comprised in survey No. 880, measuring 1 Kanal and 14 Marlas, is stated to be State land and the building(s) raised thereon belong to the Estates Department of the State, yet the land and the structure(s) existing thereon, too, were notified for acquisition by the aforesaid notification dated 25.04.2010. Some more State land is also stated to be existing there behind/adjacent to the aforesaid Estates buildings. 3. In response to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, petitioner No. 1 in SWP No. 156/2013, submitted his objections dated 17.05.2010 to the Director, ERA, requesting therein to alter the alignment of the proposed acquisitions or, in the alternative, to rehabilitate the objector by providing an alternate shop of the same and similar dimension in a shopping Mall/shopping line to be constructed in and around the proposed site of acquisition. It appears that the petitioners were informed that they would be rehabilitated in the Rehabilitation Complex that was being constructed by the ERA at the Exhibition Crossing. The petitioners, therefore, on 23.05.2011, collectively represented to the Director, ERA, Srinagar, suggesting therein that they may not be accommodated in the building constructed for the purpose, as aforesaid, but, instead, a shopping line for them may be constructed on the State land lying vacant behind/adjacent to the building sought to be acquired. 4. It appears that informal consultations ensued and parleys were held between the petitioners and the Director, Central, ERA. One such meeting between them seems to have taken place on 23.05.2011 on which date the petitioners made the aforesaid representation. The record note of the said meeting issued by Director, Central, ERA, under his office endorsement No. DC/ERA/2011/3566-71, a photocopy of which has been placed on record of OWP No. 156/2013, as Annexure 'F', records as under: "The deliberations of the consultations and the suggestions put forth by the affected shopkeepers are detailed as under: 1) The affected shopkeepers gave brief account of the consultations previously held with them by ERA. 2) The shopkeepers informed that shops they were in possession of are their only source of income and, if possible, may be spared. They felt that the acquisition of the structure under reference was not immediately required in the view of the fact that widening of link-road from Amira Kadal to IG Road was to be taken up at a later stage. The shopkeepers were informed that entire building of Estates Department was coming in the alignment of the proposed flyover irrespective of widening of Amira Kadal-IG Road link. 3) The shopkeepers while agreeing to the necessity of the project contended that their shops were located on the prime location, and as such they should be rehabilitated at par with their present location. 4) The shopkeepers were informed that they will be suitably rehabilitated. This could be by way of project assisted alternate accommodation (shops) or cash compensation (self relocation). In case of latter option i.e. self relocation, the quantum of compensation shall be decided by the High Level Committee headed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir in consultation with the affected shopkeepers. 5) In case of Project Assisted Relocation, ERA has identified two relocation sites, on the basis of the business catchment area of the project, one at Engineering Complex near Jehangir Chowk and other at Natipora-Airport Road intersection across Ram Bagh Bridge. 6) In view of its close proximity to the proposed shopping complex at Jehangir chowk, the tenant shopkeepers of Estates Building are proposed to be Rehabilitated in the said complex. The shopkeepers were assured rehabilitation at the said place with the choice of opting for the other complex at Ram Bagh. 7) The shopkeepers requested that they may be rehabilitated by constructing a separate shop line in the adjacent vacant plot of land reportedly belonging to a private party. The shopkeepers were informed that it may not be possible to concede to their request in view of the fact that a part of the said plot of land is coming in the alignment of the proposed project and widening of Amira Kadal-IG Road link. However, it was agreed to flag the issue during the negotiations in the HLC. 8) The shopkeepers were informed that such of the shopkeepers who suffer loss of livelihood as a result of temporary closure of shops shall be provided cash assistance for the period of temporary closure. However, it was agreed to flag the issue during the negotiations in the HLC. 8) The shopkeepers were informed that such of the shopkeepers who suffer loss of livelihood as a result of temporary closure of shops shall be provided cash assistance for the period of temporary closure. This will be however subject to production of requisite documents in support of their claim. The cash assistance will be released after proper verification of the documents. 9) The shopkeepers agreed in principle to negotiated settlement through the medium of private negotiations under the auspices of the HLC." 5. The Sub-Committee comprising the Chief Engineer, PW(R&B), Kashmir; the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar; the Collector, Land Acquisition, ERA, Kashmir; and the Director (Central), ERA, constituted for implementation of Rehabilitation Plan for the Expressway Corridor in question, also held a meeting on 09.01.2012 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, wherein the petitioners, i.e., the shopkeepers of the Estates Building, Magarbal Bagh, were represented by S/Shri Tariq Ahmad Shah, Ghulam Nabi and Ajit Singh, Shopkeepers. This meeting was also participated by the authorities of some central and State Government Departments, like Government Handicrafts Department, Sericulture Development Department, Indian Meteorological Department, etc. etc., whose premises were also falling within the alignment of the Expressway Corridor. The minutes of the meeting signed and circulated by the Sub-Committee, copy whereof has been placed on record of SWP No. 156/2013, as Annexure 'H', at item No. 7 records as Under: "7) Consultation with tenant shopkeepers of Estates Building at Magarmal Bagh: The Sub-Committee informed the shopkeepers that it was not possible to construct shops at the place admitted by them. The displace(d) shopkeepers would be established in the shopping complex being constructed near Exhibition Ground, Jehangir Chowk. It was however agreed to discuss ways to incorporate shopkeepers' needs into the internal design and external facade (sic) of the rehabilitation complex." 6. Meanwhile, the petitioners approached the Chief Minister of the State through representation dated 18.05.2012 with a request to direct the concerned authorities to construct suitable shops at the vacant space behind their existing shops to accommodate them. The said representation was forwarded by OSD to the Chief Minister to the Director, Estates, Srinagar, for appropriate action. The Deputy Director, Estates, in turn seems to have taken up the matter with the Social and Resettlement Experts (K), of the ERA. The said representation was forwarded by OSD to the Chief Minister to the Director, Estates, Srinagar, for appropriate action. The Deputy Director, Estates, in turn seems to have taken up the matter with the Social and Resettlement Experts (K), of the ERA. In one such communication dated 14.11.2012, addressed by Deputy Director, Estates, Kashmir, to the Social and Resettlement Experts (K), ERA, placed on record as Annexure 'N', the Deputy Director Estates, wrote as under: "[I]t is to intimate that the shopkeepers who are in occupation of Estates owned shops at Magarmal Bagh building which come under road widening/construction of flyover are frequently visiting to this office for their rehabilitation in lieu of their present occupation of shops. They have also approached to the Hon'ble Chief Minister in this behalf stating that they may be rehabilitated in the same area as there is sufficient area of land vacant/available on the back side of the said building which can be utilized for their rehabilitation purpose by constructing alternate building in order to save their livelihood. The Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister has desired Director Estates to listen to the grievance and submit in file. In view of above you are requested to kindly give your views/opinion in the matter, so that the Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister may be apprised in this behalf." 7. In response to the aforesaid communication dated 14.11.2012, the Social and Resettlement Expert (K), J&K ERA, in terms of his letter dated 12.12.2012, wrote back to the Deputy Director, Estates, Kashmir, Srinagar, as under: "With reference to your above cited communication, it is to inform that ERA has planned the rehabilitation of the shopkeepers of Estates Building to be displaced by the construction of Jehangir Chowk - Ram Bagh Flyover in accordance with Resettlement Plan (RP) approved by the Asian Development Bank of the sub-project. The RP provides for relocation of these displaced shopkeepers in the Shopping Complex being built in the premises of Exhibition Ground at the site of the gutted Engineering Complex. The alternative relocation site suggested by the affected shopkeepers in their representations has already being look (sic) into and consultations in this regard were held in different forums. The RP provides for relocation of these displaced shopkeepers in the Shopping Complex being built in the premises of Exhibition Ground at the site of the gutted Engineering Complex. The alternative relocation site suggested by the affected shopkeepers in their representations has already being look (sic) into and consultations in this regard were held in different forums. The shopkeepers were informed during consultation/meeting held on 23rd May 2011, that the proposal was not feasible and details of which are available in the record note of said meeting circulated vide No. DC/ERA/2011/3566-71, dated 26th May, 2011. The issue was also discussed in the meetings of the High Level Committee (constituted by the Government for implementation of RP of the Flyover sub-project) and affected shopkeepers were assured that their needs/requirements will be incorporated in the internal design of the new shopping complex (minutes of which were circulated vide No. DC/ERA/4689-94, dated 11th January, 2012). Besides affected shopkeepers also had meeting with the Senior Urban Development Specialist of ADB on 22nd Nov 2012 in Srinagar during which shopkeepers were informed that it was difficult to concede with their request in the (sic) as no land is available for construction of the shops along the street. The copies of above mentioned communications are enclosed." (Underlining all through supplied) 8. The petitioners also seem to have directly approached the Asian Development Bank on line. This is borne out by the fax communication dated 21st January, 2013 From one Mr. Fei Yue, Director, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines, sent to the President of the petitioners by Senior Portfolio Management Specialist, SAUW, ADB, in response to their e-mail expressing their concerns. In the aforesaid Fax, the petitioners were reminded that ADB had requested the authorities to implement the resettlement in accordance with the resettlement plan prepared/uploaded in accordance with ADB guidelines and policies. 9. On 01.02.2013, a notice issued by the Collector, Land Acquisition, ERA, Kashmir, under No. 609-616, dated 29.01.2013, appeared in a local daily, which informed and directed all those shopkeepers whose shops were being acquired by ERA for construction of the Expressway Corridor in question to submit their documents with respect to their claims for allotment of shops/godowns in the Rehabilitation Complex, Exhibition Ground at Jehangir Chowk. 10. 10. The aforesaid public notice dated 29.01.2013/01.02.2013 is the subject matter of challenge in first of the present two writ petitions filed by the petitioners to the extent of its application to them whereby they are sought to be rehabilitated and are being provided shops in the aforesaid Rehabilitation Complex, instead of permitting them to continue in their own shops at Magarmal Bagh in the Estates Building on the ground of the same being partially affected. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to command the respondents to repair the shops they are occupying in the Estates Building by extending the same backwards on the State land equivalent to the measure these shops are demolished on the front side for construction of the flyover, and, in that connection, to direct the ERA to allot funds to Estates Department. 11. Broadly speaking, the aforesaid reliefs are sought on the grounds that the petitioners have paid premium for the said shops, that they have invested huge sums of money in these shops and have been conducting their respective businesses therein for decades together; that the petitioners are not ordinary tenants of the Estates Department, but they have twice paid premium of the shops equivalent to the cost of the shops and are paying monthly rent. The petitioners claim to be joint owners of the shops with the Estates Department. It is stated that the petitioners have a fundamental right to hold and enjoy these shops as joint owners thereof. At the same time, it is stated that the land underneath and appurtenant to the Buildings in question is State land. 12. The respondents in their reply, apart from taking preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, stating that the petitioners in essence have filed the writ petition to stall the public project of general public importance and that the dislocation of the petitioners due to the project has been taken care of by rehabilitating them in the Rehabilitation complex located at a stone's distance from the site of the building sought to be acquired, have averred that none of the rights of the petitioners have been violated. It is specifically pleaded that construction of a shopping line at the same place is not feasible from the engineering point of view which fact was communicated to the petitioners in the Sub-Committee meeting. It is specifically pleaded that construction of a shopping line at the same place is not feasible from the engineering point of view which fact was communicated to the petitioners in the Sub-Committee meeting. The respondents in their reply have made detailed submissions about the facts those have already been set out above 13. It may be mentioned here that after the Collector, Land Acquisition, ERA, Kashmir, issued the aforesaid notice dated 29.01.2013/01.02.2013, it appears, draw of lots for allotment of shops in favour of affected shopkeepers of Estates Department owned shops at Magarmal Bagh, Srinagar, was conducted on 05.03.2013 and the result thereof was published by Deputy Director, Estates, Kashmir, Srinagar, in a local daily in its issue dated 07.03.2013. In terms of the said notice, the petitioners (in order of their arraignment in SWP No. 156/2013) were, respectively, allotted shop Nos. G-59 (front side); G-33 (front side); G-43 (front side); G-23 (front side); G-28 (front side); G-39 (front side). Simultaneously, on 25.03.2013, the Deputy Director, Estates, Kashmir, Srinagar, issued eviction notices individually to the petitioners, inter alia, stating therein that whereas the ERA had provided shops (which were duly identified in the individual notices) in the Rehabilitation Complex near Jehangir Chowk, Srinagar, for rehabilitation of affected shopkeepers of Magarmal Bagh Estates Department owned building, and requesting them to shift to the shops so allotted to them in the said Rehabilitation Complex within a period of seven day from the date of issue of such eviction notices, failing which, it was stated therein that, action as warranted under rules shall be taken. 14. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid eviction notices dated 25.03.2013 in the subsequent writ petition, being OWP No. 295/2013, with prayer to direct the respondents to proceed with the acquisition of property or demolition of the building in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act and not to take any action against the petitioners in violation of the principles of natural justice. 15. The respondents in their reply filed in response to the aforesaid second writ petition, OWP No. 295/2013, have taken almost the same stand as in the first writ petition, OWP No. 56/2013. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the matter. 17. 15. The respondents in their reply filed in response to the aforesaid second writ petition, OWP No. 295/2013, have taken almost the same stand as in the first writ petition, OWP No. 56/2013. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the matter. 17. As is seen from the facts narrated above, the sole so-called grievance projected by the petitioners in these two writ petitions is that they be not rehabilitated in the building, termed by the respondents as Rehabilitation Complex, constructed by the ERA for rehabilitation of the displaced shopkeepers; instead they demand that they be rehabilitated by constructing a shopping line at the existing site on the State land falling behind/adjacent to the building which falls within the alignment of the Expressway Corridor and is proposed to be demolished. Obviously, therefore, this is not a case where the petitioners are against the construction of the Expressway Corridor, widening of the road or acquisition of the building/land or demolition of the building required in that connection. As a matter of fact, they cannot have any such objection for multiple reasons, including that the Project in question is of general public importance. The petitioners are also not the owners of the land and/or the building in which the shops under their occupation are housed. They were simply licensees of the shops which fact is reflected by Annexures A1 to A6 appended by them with the Writ petition, OWP No. 156/2013. In fact, by notices dated 25.03.2013 issued by the Deputy Director Estates to the petitioners, which they have impugned in their second writ petition, OWP No. 295/2013, they stand evicted from the shops in question. 18. It is noticed from the record of the two writ petitions that when the writ petition, OWP No. 156/2013, came up before a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 26.02.2013, while issuing notice in the main writ petition, the Court in the accompanying CMP No. 243/2013, ordered that till next date before the Bench the impugned notice to the extent of petitioners shall not be acted upon. The matter, thereafter, came up before the Court on 15.03.2013, 08.11.2013 and 20.11.2013, but the aforesaid interim direction was neither renewed nor extended. Consequently, the interim direction that was passed by the Court on 26.02.2013 had lived its life and was no more operative. The matter, thereafter, came up before the Court on 15.03.2013, 08.11.2013 and 20.11.2013, but the aforesaid interim direction was neither renewed nor extended. Consequently, the interim direction that was passed by the Court on 26.02.2013 had lived its life and was no more operative. Similarly, in the subsequent writ petition, OWP No. 295/2013, another Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 01.04.2013, while issuing notice in the main writ petition and the accompanying IA No. 443/2013, ordered maintenance of status quo on spot till next date before the Bench. The said interim direction was extended by orders dated 17.04.2013 and 26.04.2013 till next date before the Bench/till next date of hearing, but when the petition next came up for hearing before the Court on 29.04.2013 and 02.05.2013, the interim direction was not renewed or extended. Axiomatically, therefore, the interim direction dated 01.04.2013 concerning the eviction notices impugned in the subsequent Writ petition, has ceased to be in operation, at least, since 29.04.2013. 19. The question is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners can maintain these writ petitions for the reliefs prayed for by them. It is to be borne in mind that the Project is funded by the Asian Development Bank. The scheme of the Project, in terms of the guidelines and policy of the ADB, is rehabilitative in nature and not compensatory. It is policy of the ADB to rehabilitate all such persons by providing alternate sites to all displaced/affected persons in the project assisted alternative sites, irrespective of whether a person displaced on account of execution of any such project, in law is entitled to alternate place or not. This is so because the ADB ensures that before executing any project funded by it, the social and environmental disturbances that a project may result in, are effectively mitigated and met with. However, in the instant case, the petitioners pursuant to the deliberations held in the meeting dated 23.05.2011 had been given an option that they would be suitably rehabilitated by way of project assisted alternate accommodation (shops) or cash compensation (self relocation). They were informed that in case of latter option, i.e., self relocation, the quantum of compensation shall be decided by the High Level Committee headed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir in consultation with the affected shopkeepers. They were informed that in case of latter option, i.e., self relocation, the quantum of compensation shall be decided by the High Level Committee headed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir in consultation with the affected shopkeepers. This is reflected in the record note of the public consultation meeting held on 23rd May, 2011 issued by Director, Central, ERA, appended by the petitioners as Annexure F with their first writ petition. Obviously, the petitioners did not opt for self relocation; they always insisted on rehabilitation. They have time and again been informed by the respondents that their demand for construction of shopping line at Magarmal Bagh could not be acceded to. 20. It may also be mentioned here that on 20.11.2013, this Court, on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, required the Chief Executive Officer, ERA, to file status report regarding the process initiated for utilizing the existing State land on spot by Estates Department and also to indicate as to whether there was any scope for reshaping of the flyover to save portion of the building possessed by the petitioners. In the Status report filed in response to the aforesaid Court order, it was stated that the building in question, belonging to the Estates Department, housing the petitioner' shops, is required to be demolished to ensure the construction of the flyover and that in order to rehabilitate the petitioners, alternate shops had been handed over to the Estates Department in the Rehabilitation Complex located in the Exhibition Ground. It was further stated therein that, as per the technical advice in the matter, there was no possibility of reshaping of the flyover, nor could any portion of the building be saved in the demolition process, since the said building was RCC frame structure. It was further stated in the status report that as per the Estates Department no construction was possible over the leftover patch of the land and that, since larger public interests were involved in the matter and the building housing the shops of the petitioners was required to be demolished, the petitioners were to be rehabilitated in the Rehabilitation Complex where all other affected persons likely to be dislocated are to be rehabilitated. In that view of the matter, there is no reason or justification, legal or otherwise, for the petitioners to deny to be rehabilitated in the Rehabilitation Complex or to seek a treatment different from what has been given to similarly placed shopkeepers. 21. As mentioned above, the petitioners have merely been licensees of the shops in question. It is well settled that in licence no interest passes and it can be revoked any time. In the instant case, eviction notices stand issued to the petitioners way back in March, 2013, meaning thereby that their licences stand revoked. Once the licences of the petitioners were revoked by issuing eviction notice against them by the competent authority, they would not be entitled to any compensation or rehabilitation. However, since the project is funded by ADB and there is a scheme to rehabilitate the persons who are displaced on account of execution of the projects and, therefore, the petitioners are being rehabilitated by providing alternative place, that too, at a stone's distance from the site and at a prime location, they have no right to claim construction of shops for them at the very site the building, being demolished, is existing. If such a prayer is allowed, then every person who is dislocated would seek the same or a similar relief. Even otherwise, in view of the impact the construction of the project would have on the society at large and the larger public interests involved, even if the petitioners would have had any right or interest in the building, the land underneath and appurtenant thereto, or would have any genuine claim to demand construction of a shopping line on the left over land on the spot, the public interest would override and prevail. Here, it is supported by the Expert view, too. 22. It is to be borne in mind that such mega projects are conceived and executed keeping in view the future needs and developments that may have to be made so that the viability and utility of the project is sustained for a long time to come. It does come forth from the records that there is another project in the offing of construction of a road connecting Amira Kadal with the Indira Gandhi-Airport Road just at or around the spot the building in question exists. It does come forth from the records that there is another project in the offing of construction of a road connecting Amira Kadal with the Indira Gandhi-Airport Road just at or around the spot the building in question exists. At the top of it, the opinion of the technical Experts will prevail and, it has come on record that they have opined against making any such constructions on the spot. In that view of the matter, the prayers made by the petitioners are untenable, grossly misconceived and without any backing of law. 23. Faced with the factual and legal scenario attendant to the present cases, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the hearing, produced photocopy of the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in writ petition. OWP No. 81/2015, which had been filed by Mohammad Shafi Shah and four other persons who were running their respective businesses in the building, known as Municipal Building, at Hari Singh High Street, Srinagar. This building together with the land underneath thereto was also subject matter of acquisition pursuant to the notice dated 25.04.2010 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Srinagar Municipal Corporation had issued a notice on 13.01.2015 notifying its intention to demolish the building in connection with construction of the Expressway Corridor and had invited offers for sale of building material likely to become available on the proposed demolition. Earlier, the aforesaid five persons, lessees of the Municipal Corporation, had refused to accept the rehabilitation scheme and demanded that they be rehabilitated on the very site by constructing shop on the remaining land, or else their shops be acquired in accordance with law. In that connection, they had filed writ petition, OWP No. 126/2013. That writ petition was disposed of on 08.11.2013 with a direction to the respondents to take ahead the acquisition proceedings in accordance with the J&K Land Acquisition Act. However, instead of going ahead with acquisition proceedings in compliance with the writ Court order dated 08.11.2013, the ERA had issued the notice dated 13.01.2015 impugned in OWP No. 81/2015. The learned Advocate General, however, conceded that in terms of writ Court order dated 08.11.2013 respondents were bound to proceed in the matter under the J&K Land Acquisition Act. However, instead of going ahead with acquisition proceedings in compliance with the writ Court order dated 08.11.2013, the ERA had issued the notice dated 13.01.2015 impugned in OWP No. 81/2015. The learned Advocate General, however, conceded that in terms of writ Court order dated 08.11.2013 respondents were bound to proceed in the matter under the J&K Land Acquisition Act. The Court, accordingly, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondents therein to proceed in the matter in accordance with the J&K Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel wants this Court to pass a direction in the present case akin to the one contained in the aforesaid judgment. 24. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. This is so for the reason that the property in question belongs to the State and there is no question of acquiring the property which already belongs to the State. True that the Municipal Building and the land underneath thereto, involved in the aforesaid writ petition, OWP No. 81/2015, also belonged to the State/the Municipal Corporation, yet the direction, as mentioned above, to proceed with acquisition thereof under the provisions of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, was passed, but that direction, though per incuriam, was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. A per incuriam decision cannot be pressed into service to be followed in the present case, especially so when the attendant facts are totally different and distinguishable, nor any such direction can be passed by the Court in the instant case. 25. In light of the above, I am of the considered view that none of the rights of the petitioners have been violated, nor are any of their rights likely to be affected by their dislocation and rehabilitation in the Rehabilitation Complex. The Estates Department, to whom the building under demolition belongs, has already taken over the shops for the petitioners in the Rehabilitation Complex after the draw of lots was held in that connection and consequent thereto they have also issued eviction notices to the petitioners way back on 25.03.2013. No unconstitutionality or illegality is attributable to the act of issuance of such notices by the Estates Department to the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions are liable to be dismissed being without any merit. These writ petitions together with the accompanying CMPs are, therefore, dismissed. No unconstitutionality or illegality is attributable to the act of issuance of such notices by the Estates Department to the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions are liable to be dismissed being without any merit. These writ petitions together with the accompanying CMPs are, therefore, dismissed. As already mentioned, the interim directions those had been passed in the two petitions were not renewed or extended beyond the dates mentioned in the judgment hereinabove. Therefore, no further orders need to be passed in that connection.