Bench says owners entitled to rent for requisitioned land, compensation for area rendered inaccessible
Kashmir Impulse Desk
Srinagar, July 2
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a trial court’s ruling awarding compensation to landowners in Sopore whose property became inaccessible because of security restrictions imposed after part of the land was requisitioned by the Army.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India and others, while clarifying that the landowners were entitled to rent only for the portion formally requisitioned and compensation for the remaining land that had become unusable due to security measures.
The dispute relates to 23 kanals and 14 marlas of land with two structures at Jalalabad in Sopore.
According to court records, the property was first occupied by the Border Security Force in 1995, later handed over to the Central Reserve Police Force, and subsequently taken over by the Army’s 22 Rashtriya Rifles in 2011.
The landowners argued that while rent had been paid during the occupation by the BSF and CRPF, payments either ceased or were not revised after the Army took possession.
They also contended that security arrangements, including concertina fencing and restricted access, rendered the remainder of the property unusable.
The Centre argued that only 6 kanal and 6 marlas had been requisitioned and that rent had been paid in accordance with rates fixed by the District Rent Assessment Committee, while the remaining land had not been occupied.
The court held that although only part of the property had been formally requisitioned, the Army’s security measures had effectively prevented the owners from using the remaining 17 kanals and 8 marlas.
The bench ruled that the landowners were entitled to rent for the requisitioned portion at rates fixed by the Rent Assessment Committee and compensation at the same rates for the remainder of the land rendered inaccessible because of security restrictions.
The appeal filed by the Union of India was dismissed, with the trial court’s decree modified only to distinguish between rent payable for the requisitioned land and compensation payable for the land whose use had been effectively denied.
