SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the Jammu Kashmir Government to assess and pay compensation at the prevailing market rate to five landowners from Rajouri whose 24 kanals and one marla of land was wrongly declared evacuee property and allotted to a displaced person, bringing relief to the petitioners after a wait of more than four decades.
The court directed the Revenue Department to complete the assessment and payment process within eight weeks from the date a copy of the judgment is made available to the Administrative Secretary of the department.
Justice M A Chowdhary, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Mohd Bashir and four others, observed that the petitioners had been waiting for compensation or alternative land since 1981, despite an order recognising their entitlement to restoration of the property.
“Even after more than four and a half decade, the petitioners have still been waiting for the compensation to be paid or in the alternative to be allotted some State land, in lieu of their land having been used for the settlement of a displaced person,” the court observed.
The petitioners, all residents of Thandi Kassi village in Rajouri district, had approached the High Court seeking restoration of their land measuring 24 kanals and one marla, falling under Khasra No. 51, or compensation at the prevailing market rate.
According to the petition, the land had been declared evacuee property under Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Administration of Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act without issuing any notice to its original owners.
Aggrieved by the declaration, the predecessors of the petitioners had approached the Additional Custodian, Rajouri, under Section 8 of the Act. Their plea was allowed on April 2, 1981, with the authority holding that they had not migrated to Pakistan and that their property had wrongly been declared evacuee property.
However, by that time, the land had already been allotted to Amar Chand, son of Thakur Dass, a displaced person. Consequently, its physical possession could not be restored to the original owners.
The Additional Custodian, finding that no alternative land of a similar nature was available in the village, forwarded the matter to the Custodian General for sanction of compensation under Section 14-A of the Act.
The Custodian General subsequently took up the matter with the Revenue Department through a communication dated May 8, 1985. The Revenue Secretary, through a communication dated August 28, 2006, also asked the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, to furnish the relevant record and restoration order.
However, no compensation was paid to the petitioners and they were not informed about any decision taken on the matter, prompting them to approach the High Court.
In its response, the Evacuee Property Department maintained that it was not the competent authority to sanction compensation in lieu of restored land, stating that the matter had to be dealt with by the other respondents after examining the restoration process.
The Revenue Department, in its reply filed through the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, referred to the Record of Rights for 1961-62, which recorded the ownership of the land in the names of several individuals, while also reflecting evacuee and allottee entries.
The Deputy Commissioner stated that the property had been declared evacuee property and allotted to a refugee from Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, after which ownership rights had been conferred upon the allottee under Section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
Examining the matter, Justice Chowdhary noted that the Additional Custodian’s order dated April 2, 1981, recognising the original owners’ entitlement to restoration, had attained finality.
The court observed that since the land had already been allotted to a displaced person and its possession could not be restored, the authorities had recommended compensation under Section 14-A of the Act.
Referring to the statutory provision, the court noted that it provides for the transfer of alternative government property of nearly the same value to an eligible claimant or other appropriate measures where restoration of the original property is not practicable.
“Having regard to the pleadings, submissions made at the Bar and consideration of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to the restoration of their land having been wrongly declared as ‘Evacuee Property’,” the judgment stated.
The court further held that, in view of the circumstances and the fact that the original land had been allotted to a displaced person, the petitioners were entitled to compensation to be assessed by the Government.
Accordingly, the court directed the respondents to assess compensation at the prevalent market rate and make payment to the petitioners for the 24 kanals and one marla of land in Thandi Kassi village within eight weeks of the judgment being made available to the Administrative Secretary of the Revenue Department.
The petition was disposed of along with the pending applications.
The petitioners were represented by advocate Sanjay Sharma, while Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli appeared for respondents 1 and 2. Deputy Advocate General Vishal Bharti represented respondents 3 and 4.
