The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents are obligated to pay compensation for the demolished houses to the petitioners, as the demolition violated the petitioners' fundamental right to hold property.

1. The petitioners owned two houses and Cowshed in village Wata Magam, description whereof is given in para-3 of the writ petition. The houses were occupied by Border Security Force (BSF) and remained in their possession till September, 2000. Rent received on account of occupancy of the houses by Border Security Force, was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners vide Government Order Nos. 263 dated 10.10.1994 and 322 dated 28.11.1994. Though the Border Security Force vacated the houses, the petitioners were not in a position to move in for reasons, (i) that they had provided the houses to the Security Forces, and (ii) that a near-by house was occupied by Special Operation Group of the Police attacked by the militants day in and day out.

2. The petitioners' case is that the Special Operation Group and CRPF personnel demolished both the houses and Cowshed in the year 2002 and took away the building material. The petitioners claim to have approached the District Development Commissioner, Budgam with an application for redressal of their grievances and the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam submitted to the District Development Commissioner on his asking, substantiated the petitioners' claim that the houses were demolished and the material taken away by Special Operation Group and CRPF personnel. However, no steps were taken by the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners.

3. Aggrieved by inaction on part of the respondents, the petitioners have filed instant petition and praying for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents;

i) to pay, a sum of Rs.600000/- rupees six lac to the petitioner No.1 as loss sustained by him on account of demolition of his house situated in village Wata Magam;

ii) pay a sum of Rs.600000/- six lacs to the petitioner no.2 for the loss caused to him on account of demolition of his house situated in village Wata Magam and a sum of Rs.1 lac to him for the loss sustained on account of demolition of cow shed,

iii) to pay a sum of Rs. 100000/- rupees one lac to the petitioner on account of damages for illegal demolition of their aforementioned structures;

iv) to pay interest on the aforementioned amount @ 15% P.a. to the petitioner w.e.f. April 2002.

4. The respondents in their reply have admitted that the two houses and cowshed constructed by the petitioners in the year 1992 and occupied and later abandoned by them were taken over by 192 Bn Border Security Force in the year 1992 and occupied till December 2000, on payment of rent to the petitioners. It is also admitted that the property in question was occupied by CRPF and retained till April, 2001 without paying any rent to the petitioners. It is pleaded that after the houses were vacated by the CRPF, militants started using the houses for subversive activities and launched attacks on the Security Force. Use of property in question by the militants for militant activities is said to have led to registration of Case FIR Nos. 32/01 u/s 307 RPC and 4/5 E.S Act, 41/01 u/s 302, 427 RPC and 7/27IAA, 95/01 u/s 302, 307,427 RPC, 22/02 u/s/307 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act and 48/02 u/s 307 RPC and 7/27 IAA. The respondents further admit that as the two houses used by the militants for subversive activities, the houses were demolished for security reasons. It is contended that the houses were demolished not with the intention to harm the petitioners but to prevent militant activities and misuse of the houses by the militants. The respondents insist that the action taken by them was not only conformity into their duty to see that subversive activities are stamped out but also in public interest. The petitioners in their rejoinder have refute the stand taken by the respondents 1 to 4 in their reply, on the grounds that it is belied by letter No. CRB/01/5275 dated 13.5.2003 and CRB/01/5276 dated 13.5.2003 (Annexure D and E of the petition).

5. Heard and considered.

6. There is almost no controversy between the parties as regards factual aspects of the case.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document