Indian Army asked to pay 46 years rent to J&K Man for ‘occupying’ his land

Last updated:Nov 29, 2024 09:22 IST

The petitioner said that he has not received any compensation or rent for his land since 1978

The petitioner said that in 1978, the Army occupied his 1.6 hectare land in Tangdhar near LoC Kupwara district.

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently ruled that the right to property now falls within the realm of human rights.

After disposing of a petition on November 20, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal ordered the army, which had occupied the petitioner’s plot since 1978, to pay the rent accrued over the past 46 years within a month.

“The right to property is now not only considered a constitutional or legal right, but also falls within the realm of human rights. Human rights have been considered in the context of individual rights, such as the right to shelter, livelihood, health care, employment, etc., and over the years human rights have acquired a multi-faceted dimension,” the judge underlined.

According to the petition filed by one Abdul Majeed Lone in 2014, the Army occupied his 1.6 hectare land in Tangdhar near LoC Kupwara district in 1978. He claimed that he had not received any compensation or rent for his land.

“The state exercising its power of ’eminent domain’ can interfere with a person’s right to own property by acquiring it, but this must be for a public purpose and therefore reasonable compensation must be paid,” the court ruled. .

While the Centre’s counsel claimed that the army had not occupied the land, the revenue department confirmed that it had been in the army’s possession since 1978.

The court ordered a new investigation into the land in question and found through a report from the tax authorities that it had been in the possession of the military since 1978. It further noted that the landowner had never received any rent or compensation.

“From the facts stated above, it is clear that the respondents violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner and deprived him of valuable constitutional right without following the procedure as provided by law,” the court observed.

The verdict underlined that the state and its agencies “may expropriate a citizen of his property” except in accordance with the law.

“The obligation to pay damages, although not expressly contained in Article 300A, can be inferred from that Article,” it added.

(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed – PTI)

Location:

Srinagar, India