Right to own property is human right: J&K, Ladakh HC asks army to pay 46 years’ rent to landowner

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 realm 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, in exercise of its power of ’eminent domain’, may interfere with a person’s right to property by acquiring the same, 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 regarding the land in question and discovered through a report by the According to the tax authorities, it had been in the possession of the military since 1978. It further noted that the landowner had never received 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 he and his agencies “may expropriate a citizen of his property” except in accordance with the law.” The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300A, can be inferred from the said Article,” it added.