10 April 2026
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has once again underscored that statutory safeguards in land acquisition cannot be diluted under the guise of urgency. In a significant ruling in Union Territory of J&K v. Piaray Lal Tickoo, the Division Bench held that failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of paying 80% compensation before taking possession under Section 17-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990 renders the entire acquisition proceedings liable to lapse by operation of Section 11-B.
The judgment arose out of an intra-court appeal filed by the Union Territory challenging the decision of the writ court, which had quashed acquisition proceedings pertaining to land acquired for construction of an ITI Complex. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the appeal, while moulding the relief in light of subsequent developments.
At the heart of the controversy was the State’s reliance on urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act. The appellants contended that possession had been taken and the ITI Complex had already been constructed, thereby justifying the acquisition despite procedural lapses. However, the Court firmly rejected this argument, holding that invocation of urgency provisions does not absolve the State from complying with mandatory statutory requirements.
The Court categorically observed that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate compliance with Section 17-A, which mandates payment of 80% of compensation prior to taking possession. In the absence of such compliance, the possession itself was held to be legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court ruled that the acquisition proceedings stood vitiated and lapsed due to violation of Section 11-B.
Apart from the violation of Section 17-A, the Court identified multiple procedural irregularities that went to the root of the acquisition process. It found that the notification under Section 4 had not been properly published in accordance with law, particularly considering that the affected landowners were migrants residing in Jammu and the newspapers used for publication had no effective circulation in that region.
Further, the Court reiterated the settled position that the right of objection under Section 5-A is a valuable statutory right and cannot be treated as an empty formality. In the present case, despite objections having been filed, no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the landowners. The Collector’s failure to consider objections and conduct an enquiry was held to be a clear violation of Section 5-A.
On the issue of limitation, the Court noted a “grave violation” of Section 11-B. The declaration under Section 6 had been issued on 14.01.2005, whereas the award was passed on 28.08.2007 well beyond the prescribed two-year period. The attempt of the appellants to justify this delay by invoking urgency provisions was rejected, particularly in light of non-compliance with Section 17-A.
An additional complication arose from the fact that the acquisition records had been destroyed in a fire, leaving the appellants unable to substantiate procedural compliance. The Court noted that such absence of records further weakened the State’s case.
Despite holding the acquisition proceedings to be vitiated, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach while moulding the relief. Taking into account that the ITI Complex had already been constructed on the acquired land, the Court refrained from directing restoration of possession or fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2022), the Court held that where possession is not taken in accordance with law due to non-compliance with Section 17(3-A), the proceedings are vitiated, but appropriate relief can be structured to balance equities.
Accordingly, while upholding the finding that the acquisition proceedings stood vitiated due to violations of Sections 4, 5-A, 11-B, and 17-A, the High Court modified the relief. It directed the authorities to pass a fresh award by treating 28.08.2007 the date of the original award as the relevant date for determination of market value, applying the framework of the 1990 Act. Statutory benefits, including interest, were directed to be calculated from the date of taking possession, i.e., 03.07.2005.
The Court further clarified that the fresh award would give rise to a fresh cause of action for seeking enhancement of compensation, if the landowners were dissatisfied. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of three months, failing which the respondents would be entitled to costs of ₹50,000.
.
Case Details
LPA 311/2025
