Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has ordered the government authorities to pay punitive compensation of rupees ten lakhs besides recompense by way of damages to the tune of Rs 76 lakhs, to be recovered from erring officials, for illegally demolishing the property of an elderly man from Jammu.
The court also directed the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of J&K to conduct an in-depth enquiry within a period of two months and take action, including penal measures, to ensure accountability of individual officers who have acted in violation of the law in the instant case.
The judicial action followed a petition by 69 year Abdul Majid whose properties, including a restaurant, at Dawara, Sambam Jammu, were demolished by the Forest Department without due process of law.
The petitioner had purchased 12 Kanals and 7 Marlas at Dawara, through registered sale deeds (2000–2004). Mutations were duly attested, and revenue records reflected his ownership.
In 2012, the petitioner constructed “Grand Hill” restaurant on the land after obtaining necessary permissions.
In 2020, the tehsildar concerned cancelled the mutations without notice, citing irregularities under Government Order.
The Forest Department in 2022 demolished structures constructed on it alleging encroachment on forest land.
After perusing the records and hearing the arguments of the parties, Justice W S Nargal found that the respondent authorities have acted in most clandestine manner by wrongly interpreting the true import and spirit of Government Order No. LB-6/C of 1958 after 62 years, which shocks the conscience of this Court, particularly, when the ownership rights were also conferred thereafter in 1966”.
He recorded “no grouse was ever raised by any aggrieved party all along these years and clandestinely, on Sunday, the structures belonging to petitioner were demolished. Thus, it is a fit case where the State (now UT) must make payment of punitive compensation as well”.
The court allowed the petitions by the elderly man and annulled the cancellation of mutations by the Tehsildar, Jammu, declaring the cancellation as null, void, inoperative, and non-binding on the petitioner’s rights.
The Forest Department actions in demolishing the petitioner’s properties were also declared unlawful and executed without due process.
“Consequently, the respondents are mandated to compensate the petitioner with damages to the tune of Rs. 76,40,200/- for the reconstruction of the damaged structures, calculated according to the Government’s established rates, and to recover this amount from the concerned officials responsible for the illegal demolition”, the court ordered.
The respondents have been additionally prohibited from disrupting the petitioner’s tranquil/peaceful possession of the land located in Dawara, Tehsil and District Jammu.
The court furthermore said “the arbitrary and unilateral actions of the former State (now Union Territory) cannot be countenanced, as the State (now UT) has failed to adhere to the due process of law and has attempted to revisit an issue that was conclusively resolved in 1958, when the predecessors-in-interest were designated as tenants-at-will, and later when proprietary rights were granted pursuant to a Government Order in 1966, which facilitated the attestation of mutations and the registration of sale deeds”.
Consequently, this Court believes that the officials of the State (now UT) who execute or endorse such unlawful actions should face disciplinary measures, and their illegal transgressions should result in criminal as well as disciplinary repercussions, as public accountability for public officials must be the norms, it said.
It ordered the respondents “to pay the petitioner a punitive compensation to the tune of ₹10,00,000/- (ten lacs) as an interim measures which will be in addition to the compensation by way of damages to the tune of ₹76,40,200/- (seventy six lacs, forty thousand, two hundred) which has been assessed and is being granted by this Court for demolishing the property of the petitioner without any authority of law”.
Justice Nargal observed that the Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution is a Constitutional right concerning the safeguarding of property rights. It asserts: “No person shall be deprived of his property except by the authority of law.
This provision, the court said, safeguards an individual’s property rights, prohibiting arbitrary confiscation by the Government or any authority. The right is contingent upon legal stipulations, permitting property acquisition or expropriation solely through due process of law.
It held that the executive must operate transparently to prevent arbitrariness.
“Given the unique facts and circumstances of this case, which shocks the Court’s conscience, specific directives are necessary to ensure that public officials refrain from acting in a high-handed, arbitrary, and discriminatory manner. Should they engage in such conduct, accountability must be imposed upon them”, remarked the court.
