Synopsis: The Court dealt with a writ appeal challenging the 2016 acquisition of some land under the PMGSY Scheme for the construction of the Hewagon-Dhanmasta road.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently emphasised that private interests must give way to the public interest, while dismissing appeals challenging a land acquisition proceeding.
The Court also pointed out that it was the consistent view of the Constitutional Courts that the viability or feasibility of the process would not fall within the domain of the Court in matters pertaining to land acquisitions unless it was ex facie contrary to the law or tainted with palpable malafides.
The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, referring to various Supreme Court rulings on this issue, observed that it is settled law that wherever there is conflict between the private interest and the larger public interest, the later prevails over the former. The private interest must give way to the public interest and be subordinated to the public good in the same way.
In this case, the Court noted that less than 10 people objected to the land acquisition in question, while the majority of landowners or residents were apparently not opposing the acquisition.
The Court dealt with a writ appeal challenging the 2016 acquisition of some land under the PMGSY Scheme for the construction of the Hewagon-Dhanmasta road.
After it was found that around 100 households would be damaged by the alignment of the road initially proposed, steps were taken to realign the road construction, which was also eventually approved by the Central Government.
By way of a writ petition, which was rejected by the High Court, the land acquisition was challenged. This prompted the petitioners to file a writ appeal before Acting Chief Justice Bindal and Justice Wani’s Division Bench.
In turn, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal finding that the interference of the Court was not called for. In the allegations of malafides made by the petitioners, the Court found no merit and considered that the grievances presented were dealt with lucidly and validly in the earlier single judge ruling.
The Bench also took the view that the petitioners’ grievances were theoretical and hypothetical rather than real or substantial grievances.
Advocates KS Johal and Karman Johal appeared for the petitioners/appellants, while Senior AAG SS Nanda appeared for the government of Jammu and Kashmir.