SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a trial court’s order directing the Union of India and Army authorities to compensate landowners in Sopore for the entire extent of their land affected by Army occupation, ruling that even land not formally requisitioned but rendered inaccessible because of security restrictions entitles owners to compensation. While dismissing the Union government’s appeal, the court clarified that rent would be payable for the requisitioned land and compensation at the same rate for the remaining land that had become unusable due to Army restrictions.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar in an appeal filed by the Union of India and others against a decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sopore, in favour of landowners Anwar-ul-Islam and others.
The dispute relates to 23 kanals and 14 marlas of land along with two structures at Jalalabad, Sopore. According to the landowners, the property was first occupied by the Border Security Force in 1995, later by the CRPF, and subsequently by the Army’s 22 Rashtriya Rifles in March 2011. They alleged that while rent had been regularly paid during the occupation by the BSF and CRPF, the Army failed to pay rent in accordance with the revised rates notified by the Rent Assessment Committee.
The plaintiffs contended that although only a portion of their land was under direct occupation, the remaining land had been fenced with concertina wire and rendered inaccessible because of Army security arrangements. They sought revised rent for the entire property and the structures standing on it.
The Army argued that only six kanals and six marlas of the plaintiffs’ land had been requisitioned and that rent had already been paid in accordance with rates fixed by the District Rent Assessment Committee. It maintained that no other land belonging to the plaintiffs had been occupied.
After examining documentary and oral evidence, Justice Dhar observed that while only a specified portion of the land had been formally requisitioned, the remaining land had effectively become unusable because the Army had blocked access to it through security restrictions.
“The plaintiffs may not strictly be entitled to rent for the non-requisitioned area but they would certainly be entitled to compensation for loss of use and enjoyment of that portion of the area,” the court said.
The court further held that the Army “cannot avoid liability to pay compensation for the unrequisitioned land once it is shown that in reality, the plaintiffs’ access and enjoyment of the balance unrequisitioned portion of the suit land was completely excluded by the actions of the Army.”
Justice Dhar noted that evidence on record, including the testimony of revenue officials and a joint inspection report, established that the plaintiffs had no practical access to the remaining portion of their land because pathways had been blocked and security fencing prevented its use.
While agreeing with the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to payment for the entire property, the High Court modified the decree by drawing a distinction between rent and compensation.
The court directed that the Army shall pay rent, at the rates notified by the Rent Assessment Committee from time to time, for the requisitioned land measuring six kanals and six marlas along with the structures. For the remaining 17 kanals and eight marlas, which were not formally requisitioned but had become inaccessible because of Army occupation, the authorities were directed to pay compensation at the same rates.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India and modified the trial court’s decree to that limited extent.
