Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 117 (JK)

National Highway 1-A v. State

2025-03-11

PUNEET GUPTA

body2025
Judgment : 1. The present review petition has been filed by the writ petitioners in the judgment dated 06.10.2016, passed by the writ court, with a prayer that the direction given to the respondents to proceed in the matter be reviewed and the acquisition proceedings be quashed in respect of villages Gund Tethar and Gund Adalkote. 2. The review of the judgment is sought on the ground that the provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) were invokedby the respondents but not taken into account by the court while deciding the case. The Financial Commissioner was not having requisite power to issue notification under Section 6 of the said Act and that the award was not passed by the Collector Land Acquisition within the time frame given in the Actthough the interim direction dated 03.05.2010 passed in the writ petition did not come in the way of the Collector Land Acquisition to pass the final award. 3. The objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents 3 to 6. As per the objections filed by the respondents, the award in respect of the villages in question has been passed vide No. 5046-52/ACQ/NH-A1 dated 11.11.2016 and, thus, the present petition has been rendered infructuous. The respondents also submit that otherwise also there is no flaw in the judgment passed by the court. The Financial Commissioner has been authorized to issue the notification under Section 6 of the said Act. The interim compensation to the extent of 80% was also disbursed to the land owners and Section 11(B) of the Act is not applicable in the present case. It is also submitted that possession of the land has been otherwise taken over. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. The review petition has been filed on the grounds as mentioned above. L.C. for the petitioners submits in the judgment there is error apparent on the face of record and review of the same is required. The learned counsels appearing on the other side have, ofcourse,contended that no case is made out for review of the judgment. 6. It needs no reiteration that the petitioner is required to satisfy the court that there is error apparent on the face of record and the circumstances of the case requires intervention in the order under review. The learned counsels appearing on the other side have, ofcourse,contended that no case is made out for review of the judgment. 6. It needs no reiteration that the petitioner is required to satisfy the court that there is error apparent on the face of record and the circumstances of the case requires intervention in the order under review. The petitioners did not take objection in the writ petition of the non-conferment of the powers on the respondent- Financial Commissioner to proceed under section 6 of the Act. In any case, the respondents have taken specific stand in the objections regarding the vesting of power upon the said respondent vide SRO NO. 177 Dated 02.6.2006 and which could not be controverted by the petitioners. Secondly, the interim direction passed by the court in the writ petition on 03.5.2010 excludes the time spent in the writ proceedings for completion of acquisition proceedings as the Collector was restrained from passing the final award during the pendency of the writ petition. Even if the 80% of the amount may have been assessed after passing of the interim order and dispersed the Collector could not pass the final award in the proceedings. Once the time during which the respondents were restrained from passing the award is excluded, the passing of the award on 11.11.2016 cannot be said to be delayed award only because there is delay of some days in passing the award within statutory period of two years in terms of the Act when the circumstances as whole are taken into consideration. No tangible ground to review the judgment is made out by the petitioners in the case in hand. 7. It is to note that the judgment of which review is sought is of 06.10.2016. As per the judgment passed in OWP No. 477/2010 (one of the clubbed writ petitions), the court directed the Collector Land Acquisition to proceed in the matter and pass final award within a period of four months from the date of passing of the judgment. 8. The final award has been passed thereafter by the Collector on11.11.2016. As the final award stands passed subsequent to the judgment dated 06.10.2016, the present review petition has become infructuous. It is for the petitioners to avail the remedy which may still be available to them under law in case they are aggrieved of the award dated 11.11.2016, passed by the Collector. As the final award stands passed subsequent to the judgment dated 06.10.2016, the present review petition has become infructuous. It is for the petitioners to avail the remedy which may still be available to them under law in case they are aggrieved of the award dated 11.11.2016, passed by the Collector. 9. Disposed of.