The Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh High Court in the case Mohd Sharief and others Vs State of J&K observed and has clarified that once an award has been made under Section 11 of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, the same being final and is binding on the parties. The court also clarified the collector has no such no authority to recall or review an award after it has been passed.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri in the case observed while hearing the petitioner wherein the petitioner had been called in question the order of Collector Land Acquisition, SDM Gandoh whereby the payment which is being made in favour of the petitioners in terms of final award seek to be recovered from the petitioners in the matter.
It has also been claimed by one Mohd Amin Shah before the court that the land which is acquired for the construction of one abutment of the bridge was actually located in his khasra, and not in the khasra of the petitioners. It has also been ordered by the Collector Land Acquisition, Gandoh for a fresh demarcation of the land, and it was found that Shah was correct.
Further, the Collector then ordered the petitioner to refund the compensation which has been paid to him, as the land had not been actually utilized for the construction of the bridge. The petitioner aggrieved with the same challenged the order in the High Court in the instant petition.
The court after hearing the arguments from both the sides and examining the relevant provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, stated that once the Collector passes the final award and files it in the office, the same becomes final and conclusive evidence of the true area, land value, and the compensation apportionment.
It has also been found by the said court that no provision in the Act allows the Collector to recall or to review the award or issue directions for payment or recovery of compensation contrary to the fin l award.
Further, it has been clarified by the said court that if the possession of land acquired has not been taken over, therefore, the competent Authority may withdraw from and it may de-notify the acquisition.
The court while observing that the impugned order is also unsustainable as the same is issued without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.
Adding to it, the court stated that the petitioner who had already received compensation for their acquired land could not be forced to refund it.
The bench in the case observed and has directed the respondents for taking an appropriate action against the property of Mohd Amin Shah’s land, if any, which had been utilized for the construction of the abutment. The court also advised respondent to negotiate privately with Shah and to disburse him the compensation for his land.
Accordingly, the court stated that any unutilized acquired land, which remained to be vested in the state and the possession can be taken of if encroached upon or it is re-occupied by the petitioners and the same could be put to beneficial use or the same needs to be disposed of if necessary.
