Srinagar, July 02, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the Army cannot escape liability to compensate private landowners merely because only a part of their land has been formally requisitioned, if its security arrangements have effectively deprived them of the use and enjoyment of the remaining property.
Dismissing an appeal filed by the Union of India and other authorities, a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar upheld the entitlement of landowners to rent and compensation in respect of land affected by the Army’s 22 Rashtriya Rifles (22 RR) camp at Jalalabad, Sopore. While modifying certain findings of the trial court, the High Court ruled that rent would be payable for the requisitioned land, while compensation at the same rate would be payable for the remaining land rendered unusable because of military occupation and security restrictions.
The case relates to 23 kanals and 14 marlas of land at Jalalabad, Sopore, which was initially occupied by the Border Security Force (BSF) in 1995 and later by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). In March 2011, the Army’s 22 RR took over occupation of the property. According to the landowners, rent had been paid during the BSF and CRPF occupation, but after the Army took over, the payments were either not made in accordance with the revised government schedules or were confined only to the land formally shown as requisitioned. They also contended that security fencing and concertina wire around the camp made the entire property inaccessible.
The Union of India argued that only 17 kanals and 17 marlas had been requisitioned by the Army and that rent had been paid in accordance with the assessment made by the District Rent Assessment Committee. It denied occupying or restricting the remaining land and challenged the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sopore, in favour of the landowners.
Examining the evidence on record, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that although only part of the land had been formally requisitioned, the remaining land had effectively become inaccessible because of security arrangements put in place around the Army camp. Witnesses consistently stated that the landowners were unable to enter or use the balance land after concertina wire was laid and the approach was blocked. The court found that these assertions remained substantially unshaken during cross-examination.
The court held that the owners had been deprived not merely of possession of the requisitioned land but also of the practical use and enjoyment of the remaining property because of restrictions imposed by the Army. It also noted that even the joint inspection relied upon by the appellants indicated the absence of any approach to the non-requisitioned land, lending support to the landowners’ case that the balance property had become unusable.
Drawing a distinction between rent for requisitioned land and compensation for land rendered unusable, the High Court held that the liability of the authorities could not be defeated merely because the additional land had not been formally requisitioned.
“The appellants/defendants cannot avoid liability to pay compensation for the un-requisitioned land once it is shown that in reality, the plaintiffs’ access and enjoyment of the balance un-requisitioned portion of the suit land was completely excluded by the actions of the Army,” the court observed.
The court held that while only 6 kanals and 6 marlas belonging to the plaintiffs stood formally requisitioned, the remaining 17 kanals and 8 marlas had become unusable because access to it had effectively been denied by the security arrangements around the camp. Consequently, it ruled that the landowners were entitled to compensation for that portion as well.
Accordingly, the High Court modified the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sopore, directing that the Army shall continue to pay rent, at rates fixed from time to time by the Rent Assessment Committee, for the requisitioned land measuring 6 kanals and 6 marlas. For the remaining 17 kanals and 8 marlas, it directed payment of compensation at the same rates because the landowners had been deprived of its use and enjoyment owing to the Army’s security arrangements.
Dismissing the Union of India’s appeal, the High Court affirmed that while the State may requisition private property for security purposes in accordance with law, it cannot deny landowners the use of their property through security restrictions and simultaneously avoid its obligation to compensate them. (KDC)
