ORDER : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. For widening of road from Habba Kadal, Kral Khud to Baba Dharam Das Road Tehsil, Srinagar, Collector, PHE/Circular Road Project, Srinagar (respondent No. 3 herein) issued Notification in exercise of powers conferred upon him by sub-section (1) Section (4) of the J & K Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990, for acquisition of land, owned by petitioner under Khasra No. 1558 min, measuring 682 Sft., situated at Habba Kadal, Srinagar, published in daily newspaper "Aftab" in its issue dated 22nd April, 2001. Objections were also invited with respect to the acquisition of said land. 2. Respondent No. 3, vide letter No. C/CRP/1034-36 dated 7th January 2003, requested Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Jammu and Kashmir, for issuance of Declaration under Section 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act. In terms of said communication settlement was intimated to have been arrived at between parties with certain terms and conditions, particularly condition Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, which are reproduced hereunder: "...03. Two No. shops were promised to be allotted to the shop-keeper likely to get dislocated as per usual terms and conditions. 04. One No. was also promised to be allotted to the party at Ellahi Bagh Colony as per usual terms and conditions. 05. Dismantled material will go to the party. 06. Two (2) No. shops to be constructed on left over land behind the structure to be acquired by the party, Department should be constructed under the supervision of R & B Department." 3. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court with OWP No. 205/2003, seeking direction to respondents to permit her to raise construction of shops over the land measuring 796 Sq. ft. covered under Survey No. 158 min situated at Barbarshah Habakadal, Srinagar, being left over land, after acquisition by respondents. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.9.2004, giving liberty to respondents to acquire the land for public purpose and not to make it available to any other person. Petitioner was also given liberty to file objections to the Notification for acquisition of the land, if any, issued, provided the law permits. 4. In terms of Notification dated 5th March 2005, published in Daily Newspaper "Greater Kashmir" in its issue dated 8th March 2005, the land in question was de-notified. 5. Petitioner was also given liberty to file objections to the Notification for acquisition of the land, if any, issued, provided the law permits. 4. In terms of Notification dated 5th March 2005, published in Daily Newspaper "Greater Kashmir" in its issue dated 8th March 2005, the land in question was de-notified. 5. Respondent No. 3 again issued Notification dated 23rd June, 2006 under Section 4(1) of the J & K Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990, notifying land measuring 715 sft under Khasra No. 1558 min, situated at Haba Kadal, Srinagar, required for public purpose, viz. widening of road from Kral Khud to Baba Dharma Dass Road Districts Srinagar. Objections were also sought from affected persons, to be filed within 15 days from the date of publication of Notification. Petitioner filed objections thereto and demanded withdrawing of Notification. Representation, made by petitioner, was sent to Superintending Engineer, Circular Road Project, Srinagar. 6. Respondent No. 3 issued Final Award dated 09.10.2004 qua land, owned by petitioner, for Rs. 1,20,919.00. Thereafter, indenting department is said to have by various letters communicated that land in question is not further required for purpose of widening of road. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) was, vide letter dated 07.11.2007, in this regard, informed and requested to cancel the award. 7. Respondent No. 3 issued Notice No. C/PHE/CRP/LA/621-27 dated 12.02.2016, asking petitioner to vacate the acquired leftover land measuring 715 Sqft. and dismantle all structures within three days positively, constructed by her on the said land in respect whereof Award dated 09.10.2006 was passed by respondent No. 3 and petitioner was also asked to present herself in the office of respondent No. 3 to receive award amount for the said acquired left over land, failing which necessary action as warranted under law would be taken. Petitioner, aggrieved with notice dated 12.02.2016 issued by respondent No. 3 as also Award dated 09.10.2006, has filed present writ petition seeking the following relief: "...It is accordingly prayed that the appropriate writ, direction or order including one in the nature of writ of mandamus/certiorari, the impugned award dated 09.10.2006/09.10.2004 of respondent No. 3 be declared non exist and ineffective and unsustainable in the eye of law and consequently all subsequent proceedings/steps initiated by the respondents under the garb of the aforesaid impugned award, if any, issued for taking over the aforesaid property of the petitioner including the impugned notice dated 12.2.2016 of respondent No. 3 be also declared illegal, unsustainable, non-exist and ineffective and be quashed. The respondents be also restrained to give any effect to the aforesaid impugned award/notices and be restrained to take over the possession of the said land of the petitioner from the petitioner and or cause any interference/obstruction with the possession and utilization of the said property of the petitioner, directly or indirectly. 8. Respondents have filed Reply, strenuously resisting writ petition. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that respondents by various communications, even in the meeting, decided not to acquire the land and cancel the award and that the Award dated 09.10.2006 is not valid and is a nullity in terms of amendment to Section 11-B of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby the award under section 11 is valid only for two years from the date of publication of declaration and therefore, issuing impugned notice after more than a decade from the date of the award is not just. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel refers to decisions rendered in Siraj-ud-Din v. Revenue Minister and Ors., 1992 SLJ 219 and Bansi Lal Bhat v. State of J & K & Ors. 2012 (III) SLJ 670 [HC]. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents raises preliminary objections as regards maintainability of writ petition, by contending that land measuring 715 Sqft. owned by petitioner has been acquired by respondents strictly in accordance with mandate of Land Acquisition Act and final Award has been passed by Collector, Land Acquisition. Petitioner, if not agreed to Final Award, has to avail of alternative and efficacious remedy as available under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and thus, writ petition is not maintainable. owned by petitioner has been acquired by respondents strictly in accordance with mandate of Land Acquisition Act and final Award has been passed by Collector, Land Acquisition. Petitioner, if not agreed to Final Award, has to avail of alternative and efficacious remedy as available under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and thus, writ petition is not maintainable. Further contention of learned counsel is that the Final Award is valid notwithstanding non-payment of compensation and possession of land lying with petitioner. Delay in taking over possession of land, according to learned counsel, was due to pendency of litigation titled Mst. Fazi v. State and others before learned Municipal Magistrate, Srinagar. Section 11-B of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, does not bar respondents to execute Final Award, in that Section 11-B envisages that proceedings of award should have been culminated within a period of two years, i.e. from the date of publication and issuance of Notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act till issuing of Final Award. In the present case, notice has been issued on 12.02.2006 and Final Award passed on 09.10.2006. As maintained by respondents, the Award has been passed within a period of two years as prescribed under Section 11-B of the Land Acquisition Act. To cement this submission, learned counsel for respondents refers to decision rendered in Mohd. Maqbool Dar & Anr. v. State of J & K & Ors., 2004 (3) JKJ 443 [HC]. 12. Without going to the merits of the case, I will consider and deal with the preliminary issue raised by respondents as regards maintainability of writ petition. It would be appropriate to refer to Section 18 of J & K Land Acquisition Act. It provides: "18.--Reference to Court. (1). Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2). (2). The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made:- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time which he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award. (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire." 13. From the very terms of Section 18, it is evident that any person, not interested to accept the award, shall approach the Court for its determination. 14. In the present case, relief, besought for by petitioner, is in the nature of Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus, declaring Award dated 09.10.2006 as non-exist and ineffective and unsustainable in the eye of law and consequently the steps initiated by the respondents for issuing notice dated 12.2.2016. Petitioner is questioning Final Award and subsequent proceedings of execution of notice for vacation. Writ petition on hand, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, is not maintainable in view of the remedy available under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. My this view is also fortified by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Chenab Textile Mills Kathua J & K v. Sat Paul, 2106 (II) SLJ 621 (HC). It was held therein that after the award was passed, no writ petition could be filed challenging acquisition notice or against any proceedings thereunder and that it is consistent view of the Supreme Court that once award is passed in land acquisition proceedings, the notification as well as the declaration cannot be challenged. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that it is for the Government to decide that a particular acquisition was required for public purpose and once the Government arrives at such a conclusion it would be a conclusive proof about the purpose. The other principle that has been ingrained is that if a project is beneficial for the larger public, inconvenience to smaller number of people is to be accepted. It has to be respectfully accepted as a proposition of law that individual interest or, for that matter, smaller public interest must yield to the larger public interest. The other principle that has been ingrained is that if a project is beneficial for the larger public, inconvenience to smaller number of people is to be accepted. It has to be respectfully accepted as a proposition of law that individual interest or, for that matter, smaller public interest must yield to the larger public interest. Inconvenience of some should be bypassed for a larger interest or cause of the society. 16. The Supreme Court in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 134 , while cautioning the High Courts in interfering with the land acquisition proceedings, observed and held that "Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with china economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in shape of writ petitions filed on High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power or grant in stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 indeed any of their discretionary powers... There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings." 17. For all what has been discussed above, writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected MP(s). However, petitioner is at liberty to avail of appropriate remedy as available under law. 18. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.