Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a civil court’s decision directing the Union of India to compensate landowners in Sopore whose agricultural land was allegedly rendered inaccessible due to Army deployment, while clarifying the manner in which the compensation is to be calculated.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, dismissing the Union of India’s appeal, upheld the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sopore, dated June 20, 2020, with a modification. The High Court held that while rent is payable for the land formally requisitioned by the Army, compensation at the same rate is payable for the remaining land that became unusable because of security restrictions.
The dispute concerns 23 kanals and 14 marlas of agricultural land at Jalalabad, Sopore. According to the judgment, the land was initially occupied by the Border Security Force (BSF) in 1995, later handed over to the CRPF and subsequently to 22 Rashtriya Rifles in March 2011.
The landowners had contended that while the BSF and CRPF regularly paid rent, the Army failed to pay rent according to revised rates notified by the Rent Assessment Committee. They also alleged that concertina fencing, bunkers and security measures prevented them from accessing and cultivating the entire property.
Appearing for the landowners, advocate Ibrahim Mehraj argued that although only part of the land was under direct occupation, the entire property had effectively become unusable because access had been blocked by security measures. He submitted that the landowners were entitled to rent for the occupied portion and compensation for the remaining land affected by the deployment.
Representing the Union of India, senior advocate Masooda Jan argued that only 17 kanals and 17 marlas had been requisitioned and that only 6 kanals and 6 marlas belonging to the plaintiffs were under Army occupation. The Union maintained that rent had been paid in accordance with the recommendations of the District Rent Assessment Committee, denied occupying any additional land and disputed the allegation that the owners had been prevented from using the remaining property.
After examining the material on record, the High Court held that the evidence, including the testimony of the plaintiffs, the Patwari and other witnesses, established that fencing, security gates and restrictions had effectively blocked access to the remaining land. The court also referred to a joint inspection report relied upon by the Army, which acknowledged the absence of an approach road to the non-requisitioned portion.
The court observed that landowners cannot be deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property merely because the formal requisition covers a smaller area.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the Army is liable to pay rent for the 6 kanals and 6 marlas under formal requisition and compensation, calculated at the same rate, for the remaining 17 kanals and 8 marlas that was rendered inaccessible due to security restrictions.
By dismissing the appeal, the High Court affirmed the entitlement of the landowners to compensation, while modifying the trial court’s decree only to distinguish between rent for the requisitioned land and compensation for the remaining land that became unusable because of the Army’s restrictions.
