When Party Can Understand English & Urdu, No Prejudice Is Caused If Acquisition Notice Is Not Published In Regional Language: J&K High Court

The J&K High Court held that mere failure to publish acquisition notification in regional language as per section 4 of the Act does not vitiate the entire proceedings if the party affected has notice of the preliminary notification issued by the official Respondent and had also filled objection to the said notification.

The appellant had challenged the notification on ground that notice was also required to be published in two daily newspapers, out of which,atleast, one has to be in the regional language and also further be published in official gazette.

A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar, Vinod Chatterji Koul observed It was not the case of the appellant that he can understand only the regional language and cannot read and write or understand English or Urdu, in which the notification was published.

The court added that once the appellant had notice if the above notification, understood its contents and also filled the objections, he cannot be allowed to challenge the notification on the ground that it was not published in regional language.

The court observed that It is true that there was a shortcomings in publication of the notification as mandated by Section 4(1)(b) of the Act however, the appellant had got the knowledge of publication of the notice well in time so it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend that he has been seriously prejudiced by the failure of respondent to publish anotice in the regional language.

The court said that such challenge are tenable only when the interested party in the acquisition proceedings have been prejudiced by not publishing the notification in local language.

The court held that appellant being aware of the impugned notification and having filed objections thereto cannot be permitted to find fault with the impugned notification on the ground that the same has not been published by following all the modes prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.

The court also pointed out that an individual with personal interest in the property cannot dictate the government's decision regarding the choice or suitability of the land to be acquired for public use.

The court rejected the contention that the acquisition lacked public purpose, especially since a school already existed on the proposed site. The Court clarified that such concerns had already been raised by the petitioner in his objections and would be duly considered by the Collector on their merit.

BACKGROUND

The appeal arose out of a writ petition challenging a land acquisition notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act.

The dispute centered around a parcel of land measuring approximately 21 Kanals, which the appellant claimed had been leased to him by the Custodian General of Jammu and Kashmir for a term of 55 years.

The appellant contended that he had already secured building permission from the Srinagar Municipal Corporation and had commenced construction of a school building on the site when the acquisition notification was issued.

He alleged that the land was evacuee property leased to him legally and that due process had been violated, the appellant moved the writ court. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition, finding no merit in the appellant's challenge.

Thus appellant filed a letters patent appeal seeking to overturn the single Judge's order

APPEARANCE

G.A. Lone, Advocate with Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi, Advocate For Petitioner

Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Maha Majeed, Assisting counselSyed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Sikand er Hayat, Advocate For Respondents

Case-Title: Ghazanfar Ali vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 187

Click Here To Read/Download Order