Introduction:

The case of Union Territory of J&K v. Piaray Lal Tickoo came before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in the form of an intra-court appeal challenging the judgment of the writ court, which had quashed land acquisition proceedings undertaken by the authorities. The dispute revolved around the acquisition of land situated in village Batapora, Shopian, for the construction of an Industrial Training Institute (ITI) complex under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The respondents, who were the landowners, had approached the writ court alleging that the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the statute were not followed, particularly with respect to the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The writ court found merit in their contentions and set aside the acquisition proceedings, prompting the Union Territory to file an appeal before the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal. The central issue before the Court was whether the failure to publish the notification in newspapers having effective circulation in the locality of the affected persons, along with the absence of proof of publication in the Government Gazette, rendered the acquisition proceedings invalid. The case thus raised important questions regarding the sanctity of procedural compliance in land acquisition matters and the extent to which statutory safeguards must be adhered to in order to protect the rights of landowners.

Arguments by the Appellants (Union Territory of J&K):

The appellants, representing the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, sought to defend the acquisition proceedings and assailed the findings of the writ court on multiple grounds. At the outset, it was contended that the acquisition process had been carried out substantially in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990, and that any alleged procedural irregularities did not warrant the drastic consequence of quashing the entire acquisition. The appellants argued that the notification under Section 4(1) had indeed been published in two newspapers, namely Subah-e-Kashmir and Srinagar News, which, according to them, satisfied the statutory requirement of publication in daily newspapers. They contended that the law does not mandate that the newspapers must have circulation in every possible area where the affected persons might be residing, and that publication in newspapers circulating in the region where the land is situated should be deemed sufficient compliance. The appellants further argued that the respondents had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings, as evidenced by the fact that they had filed objections, albeit belatedly. According to the appellants, this demonstrated that the purpose of publication—to inform affected persons—had been achieved, and therefore, any deficiency in the mode of publication should be treated as a curable irregularity rather than a fatal defect. It was submitted that the doctrine of substantial compliance should be applied in such cases, particularly where the affected parties have not suffered any real prejudice. The appellants also emphasized the public purpose underlying the acquisition, namely the construction of an ITI complex, which was intended to promote skill development and economic growth in the region. They argued that setting aside the acquisition on technical grounds would adversely affect public interest and delay important developmental projects. In this regard, they urged the Court to adopt a pragmatic approach that balances the rights of landowners with the larger public interest. Additionally, the appellants sought to challenge the finding of the writ court regarding the absence of publication in the Government Gazette. They contended that the notification had been issued in accordance with the statutory framework and that any deficiency in producing documentary proof of Gazette publication should not automatically invalidate the acquisition, especially when other modes of publication had been undertaken. The appellants further argued that the respondents, being migrants residing in Jammu, could not insist on publication in newspapers specifically circulating in Jammu when the land in question was situated in Shopian, Kashmir. According to them, the statutory requirement pertains to circulation in the locality where the land is located, not the place of residence of the landowners. Finally, the appellants urged the Court to set aside the judgment of the writ court and uphold the acquisition proceedings, contending that the alleged procedural lapses were minor in nature and did not affect the legality or validity of the acquisition process.

Arguments by the Respondents (Landowners):

The respondents, on the other hand, strongly supported the judgment of the writ court and argued that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by gross non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990. They contended that Section 4(1) of the Act lays down specific requirements for the publication of the preliminary notification, which are intended to ensure that affected persons are adequately informed about the proposed acquisition and are given an opportunity to raise objections. According to the respondents, these requirements are not mere formalities but constitute substantive safeguards that go to the root of the acquisition process. The respondents pointed out that the notification in question was published in two newspapers, Subah-e-Kashmir and Srinagar News, which, they argued, did not have effective or meaningful circulation either in Kashmir or in Jammu, where the respondents were residing as migrants. They contended that publication in such newspapers defeats the very purpose of the statutory requirement, as it fails to bring the notification to the notice of the affected persons. The respondents emphasized that the law requires publication in newspapers having wide circulation in the locality, and that this requirement must be strictly complied with. The respondents further argued that there was no evidence to show that the notification was published in the Government Gazette, which is a mandatory mode of publication under Section 4(1). They contended that the absence of Gazette publication is a serious defect that cannot be cured by any other form of publication or by the alleged knowledge of the affected persons. The respondents also highlighted that they were not properly served with the notification and were thus deprived of a meaningful opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. They argued that the right to object to the acquisition is a valuable statutory right, and any denial of this right vitiates the entire process. In response to the appellants’ argument regarding knowledge, the respondents contended that actual or presumed knowledge cannot substitute for statutory compliance. They relied on established legal principles to argue that when the law prescribes a particular manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all. The respondents also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul (2011), wherein it was held that the manner of publication under Section 4 is mandatory and that its purpose is to inform the affected persons. They argued that this precedent clearly supports their case and leaves no room for a liberal or flexible interpretation of the statutory requirements. Finally, the respondents submitted that the writ court had correctly appreciated the facts and law, and that its judgment did not warrant any interference. They urged the High Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the quashing of the acquisition proceedings.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, carefully examined the factual matrix and the legal framework governing the case before arriving at its conclusion. The Court began by analyzing the requirements of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990, which mandates that a preliminary notification must be published in the Government Gazette and in two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the locality, one of which must be in the regional language. The Court emphasized that these requirements are designed to ensure transparency and to provide affected persons with adequate notice of the proposed acquisition. Upon examining the record, the Court found that the notification had indeed been published in two newspapers, namely Subah-e-Kashmir and Srinagar News. However, the Court observed that there was no material on record to establish that these newspapers had significant or meaningful circulation in the locality of the affected persons. The Court went a step further to note that these newspapers did not have substantial circulation even within Kashmir, let alone in Jammu, where the respondents were residing as migrants. The Court held that the requirement of publication in newspapers having wide circulation is not a mere formality but a substantive condition that must be strictly fulfilled. The purpose of this requirement, the Court noted, is to ensure that the affected persons are actually informed about the proposed acquisition, and not merely to create a facade of compliance. The Court further observed that no evidence had been produced to demonstrate that the notification was published in the Government Gazette. It held that publication in the Gazette is a mandatory requirement under Section 4(1), and failure to comply with this requirement renders the entire acquisition process invalid. The Court rejected the appellants’ contention that the respondents’ knowledge of the notification or their filing of objections could cure the defect in publication. It held that statutory compliance cannot be substituted by actual or presumed knowledge, and that the requirements of the law must be strictly adhered to. In support of its reasoning, the Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul (2011), which held that the manner of publication under Section 4 is mandatory and that its purpose is to inform the affected persons. The Court concluded that there was clear non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, both in terms of newspaper publication and Gazette publication. It held that such non-compliance vitiates the entire acquisition process and renders it legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the Court upheld the judgment of the writ court quashing the acquisition proceedings and dismissed the appeal. However, it clarified that the relief would be subject to modification in terms of passing a fresh award, as directed separately.