Introduction:

In the case titled Ghazanfar Ali v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, 2025, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dealt with the challenge to a land acquisition notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act. The appellant, Ghazanfar Ali, challenged the acquisition proceedings mainly on the ground that the notification under Section 4 was not published in the regional language as mandated by Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. He contended that the law requires such notification to be published in two daily newspapers, one of which should be in the regional language, apart from publication in the official gazette. The land in question, measuring about 21 kanals, was claimed by the appellant to have been leased to him by the Custodian General of Jammu & Kashmir for a term of 55 years. He stated that he had already secured building permissions from the Srinagar Municipal Corporation and had begun the construction of a school when the acquisition notification was issued. He asserted that the land was evacuee property legally leased to him and that due process was not followed, prompting him to file a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Arguments:

The appellant was represented by G.A. Lone and Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi, while the respondents were represented by Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG, assisted by Maha Majeed and Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate, along with Sikander Hayat. The appellant’s main argument was procedural irregularity—specifically, non-publication in the regional language—and asserted that such omission violated the statutory mandate and consequently vitiated the entire acquisition process. The appellant also questioned the very purpose of the acquisition, stating that a school already existed on the proposed site and that the choice of land was unsuitable. In response, the Union Territory, through the ASG and senior counsels, contended that the acquisition followed all necessary legal procedures and was for a public purpose. They stressed that the appellant had received actual notice of the notification, had read and understood it (since it was published in English and Urdu), and had even filed objections in response to it. This, they argued, negated any claim of prejudice arising out of non-publication in the regional language.

Judgement:

The division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that mere failure to publish the acquisition notification in the regional language does not vitiate the entire proceedings if the affected party had actual notice and had filed objections. The Court emphasised that the appellant never contended that he could only understand the regional language and had no knowledge of English or Urdu, in which the notification had been published. In light of the appellant’s conduct—specifically, understanding the contents of the notification and submitting objections to it—the Court found no merit in the argument of procedural failure. It held that while the shortcoming in language publication was a technical violation of Section 4(1)(b), it did not, in the present case, cause any real prejudice to the appellant.

The Court further pointed out that an individual’s interest in the property cannot override the government’s decision regarding the choice of land for public use. The assertion that a school already existed on the site did not invalidate the public purpose. The Court explained that such concerns had already been raised by the appellant in his objections and would be considered on their merits by the Collector during acquisition proceedings. Thus, the Court ruled that the challenge was not tenable and that the appellant, having had notice and participated in the proceedings, could not be permitted to find fault with the acquisition process based on a minor procedural lapse.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, reaffirming the Single Judge’s order and upholding the acquisition process. The judgment lays down a significant precedent in the context of land acquisition proceedings by clarifying that minor procedural lapses, such as non-publication in regional language, will not automatically nullify the acquisition if actual notice has been served and objections entertained.