SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for 17 marlas of land occupied for the construction of the General Bus Stand at Akhnoor, holding that the acquisition initiated under the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act could not be shifted midway to the Central legislation.
Justice M A Chowdhary, while delivering the judgment on November 3, 2026, held that the acquisition proceedings had been completed under the applicable law and that a final compensation award had been passed within the prescribed two-year period. The court also preserved the petitioners’ right to pursue other statutory remedies concerning the amount of compensation.
The petition was filed by Sukhdev Singh Pawar and Ravinder Singh Jamwal under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under the 2013 Act for acquiring their 17 marlas of land falling under Survey No. 358 at Village Manda, near the General Bus Stand in Akhnoor, Jammu district.
They had also sought compensation for the use and occupation of the land from 1991 until the passing of an award under the 2013 legislation.
According to the petitioners, the government had initiated acquisition proceedings in 1968 by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the erstwhile J&K Land Acquisition Act, but subsequently withdrew the notification and dropped the proceedings.
The petitioners later approached the Municipal Committee, Akhnoor, seeking permission to raise construction on their land. Their request was rejected on December 28, 1987, on the ground that the property had already been acquired by the government.
They challenged the decision before the J&K Special Tribunal, which, on March 14, 1989, ruled in their favour, observing that the land had neither been acquired by the government nor did the authorities have any right over it. The Tribunal directed the concerned authority to approve the site plan within one month. The order was subsequently upheld by different judicial forums, including the Supreme Court, the petitioners submitted.
The petitioners further contended that although the authorities restored possession of the remaining property, they retained 17 marlas on which a culvert and a pucca road had been constructed. They subsequently instituted a civil suit, titled Pritam Singh and Another v. State of J&K and Others, which was decreed in their favour on December 3, 2009.
When the authorities failed to hand over possession of the remaining land, the petitioners initiated execution proceedings. The government, however, informed the executing court that steps were being taken to acquire the land and that the matter had been referred to the Tehsildar, Akhnoor, for identification and preparation of the necessary documents.
The Collector Land Acquisition, Akhnoor, subsequently issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act on November 25, 2017, inviting objections from interested persons. The government later issued a declaration under Section 6 through Notification No. 19-Rev (LAJ) of 2023 dated December 22, 2023.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate P N Goja, assisted by advocate Abhinav Jamwal, argued that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed because no final award had been passed within the statutory period of two years under Section 11-B of the erstwhile J&K Land Acquisition Act.
He maintained that the 2013 Central Act had become applicable to Jammu and Kashmir following the reorganisation of the erstwhile State on October 31, 2019, and that the authorities were required to proceed under the new legislation. He accordingly sought directions for fresh acquisition proceedings and determination of compensation under the 2013 Act.
Opposing the petition, senior additional advocate general Monika Kohli, assisted by advocate Sagira Jaffar, argued that the acquisition had originally been initiated in 2017, when the Central Act was not applicable to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The respondents submitted that the proceedings were protected by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, read with the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, which safeguards actions taken under repealed laws. They further maintained that Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act was not applicable to acquisitions initiated under the erstwhile State legislation.
The government also informed the court that the draft award had been prepared and the acquisition process was being pursued by the concerned authorities.
Examining the statutory framework, Justice Chowdhary referred to Section 11-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, which requires the Collector to make an award within two years from the publication of the declaration under Section 6, failing which the acquisition proceedings lapse.
The court, however, found that the relevant declaration in the present case had been issued on December 22, 2023, and that the Collector had prepared a draft award on July 25, 2024, fixing compensation at Rs 19.32 lakh per kanal, along with statutory solatium of 15 per cent.
The draft award was subsequently forwarded to the District Collector for approval of the proposed compensation rates. According to the official record examined by the court, the final award was passed on December 17, 2025.
The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Others v. Nissar Ahmad Ganai (2022 INSC 1072), which dealt with the applicability of the 2013 Central Land Acquisition Act to proceedings initiated under the erstwhile J&K Land Acquisition Act.
The Supreme Court had held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the State legislation could continue under the same law despite its subsequent repeal following the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir. It had also ruled that Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act could not be invoked to determine compensation in acquisitions initiated under the erstwhile State Act.
Referring to the binding precedent, the High Court observed that the acquisition proceedings could not be interrupted midway to direct the authorities to proceed under the new legislation.
The court also considered its earlier judgments in Aijaz Ahmad Wawa v. Union Territory of J&K and Others, decided on August 30, 2022, and Gulzar Ahmad Akhoon and Others v. Union Territory of J&K and Others, decided on November 16, 2022, besides the judgment in Hamid Ullah Wani and Others v. Union Territory of J&K and Others, delivered on September 10, 2025.
Those cases dealt with acquisitions in which awards had been passed beyond the statutory period. The court noted that the Division Bench, in Gulzar Ahmad Akhoon, had directed the authorities to determine fresh compensation for the petitioners concerned, taking the date of the fresh award as the relevant date and accounting for applicable statutory benefits, including interest from the date possession was taken.
In the present matter, however, the court found that the final award had been passed within two years of the Section 6 declaration.
The record further showed that the 17 marlas had already been taken over for the construction of the General Bus Stand at Akhnoor. The final award determined total compensation of Rs 18,88,530 at the rate of Rs 19,32,000 per kanal. The amount was apportioned among the persons identified in Annexure A to the award, which recorded the land as Shamilat Deh and listed the persons having tenancy interests.
Justice Chowdhary consequently held that the petitioners’ claim for fresh proceedings under the 2013 Act and their contention that the acquisition had lapsed were without merit.
Dismissing the writ petition, the court clarified that the petitioners would remain entitled to pursue other statutory remedies available to them regarding the quantum of compensation. It further directed that any limitation applicable to such remedies would exclude the period during which the writ petition remained pending.
The judgment was reserved on October 5, 2026, and pronounced on November 3, 2026. The court also directed that the record be returned to the respondents through their counsel.
