Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that the Land Acquisition Act does not recognise any category of “tentative award”, clarifying that what is described in that manner is merely a provisional computation of compensation requiring approval of the competent authority. In a dispute between landowners whose property was acquired for a new court complex and the acquiring authority over compensation, the Bench stated that an objection filed by landowners at the stage of such tentative assessment may be treated as a valid application under Section 18 when the same rate is later adopted in the final award, set aside the Reference Court’s dismissal and remitted the matter for fresh determination.

The petition was filed under Article 227 seeking to set aside the order dated 17 June 2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Pulwama, which had dismissed a land acquisition reference as incompetent.

Also Read: Arbitral Tribunal May Terminate Proceedings For Non-Payment Of Fees Under Section 38(2); Remedy Is To Seek Recall Before Tribunal & Then Invoke Section 14(2): Supreme Court

The acquisition process began on an indent placed by the Principal District Judge, Pulwama, for land measuring 35 kanals, 8 marlas and 4 sirsai in Village Prichoo, Pulwama for construction of a new court complex. A notification under Section 4 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 was issued, followed by a tentative award on 19 August 2013 assessing compensation at Rs. 10 lakhs per kanal plus 15% Jabrana. Eighty percent of the compensation was disbursed, and the petitioner’s filed objections on 5 March 2014 after receiving the amount under protest.

The tentative assessment was approved by the Government, leading to the final award on 2 July 2014. The petitioners did not file objections against the final award. The Collector later forwarded the 5 March 2014 application as a reference, which remained pending until the Reference Court dismissed it for want of a valid application under Section 18.

The Court recorded that Section 18 permits an interested person who “has not accepted the award” to seek a reference by written application to the Collector. It stated that the limitation prescribed in the proviso applies to applications directed against the “award” referable to Section 11(4). The Court noted that “the final award determining compensation payable to the interested person was passed by the Collector on 2nd July 2014” and that no application had been filed thereafter seeking reference. It recorded that the application of 5 March 2014 was made “when admittedly there was no award of compensation under the Act passed by the Collector Land Acquisition.”

The Court stated that the Reference Court's view on law was “correct and unexceptionable,” but held that the matter required examination from “a different angle.” It recorded the sequence in which the tentative award was issued, objections filed, and the final award made at the same rate. It observed that the term “tentative award is completely foreign to the Land Acquisition Act” and that the petitioners were made to believe that an award had been passed when they received 80% of the assessed amount.

The Court stated that the application filed on 5 March 2014, being pending when the final award was passed at the same rate, “is to be treated as an application made by the petitioners post passing of the final award.” It noted that the Collector had “looked at the issue from this point of view” and treated the application as valid for reference. The Court recorded that “shorn of technicalities, the reference made by the Collector should be treated as valid reference” because the rate of compensation remained unchanged in the final award.

Also Read: GST Registration Limited To Fiscal Compliance, Brick Kiln Act Governs Environmental Regulation: J&K High Court Dismisses Brick Dealers’ Plea Against Licensing Requirement

The Court directed that “we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the Reference Court and remit the reference back to the Reference Court for its determination on its merits.” The petition “is, disposed of, accordingly.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Malik Mushtaq, Advocate with Mr. Younis Ahad, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Nowhabar Khan, AC vice Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG; Mr. Areeb Javed Kawoosa, Advocate vice Mr. Shah Aamir.

Case Title: Inhabitants of Village Prichoo Pulwama v. Collector Land Acquisition Pulwama & Anr.
Case Number: CM(M) No. 154/2023
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar