The State cannot plead adverse possession in respect of the land of its citizens under its unauthorized occupation, and delay and latches cannot be used to deny compensation to the citizens deprived of their immovable property.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev, J. - This appeal under Clause 12 of Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.03.2019 passed in OWP No. 951/2012 titled Mst. Amina Begum Vs. State of J&K & Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking compensation for the land measuring 37 kanals and 8 marlas situated at village Chaki Sheera Tehsil Khan Sahab District Budgam falling under different Khasra numbers under unauthorized occupation by the Department of Horticulture, has been dismissed.

2. The said writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed primarily on two grounds:

(i) that the writ petition involves determination of complicated disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by the writ court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

(ii) that there has been delay of about 54 years in approaching the court and therefore, writ petition is hit by delay and latches.

3. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to filing of the petition.

4. As is evident from the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 37 kanals and 8 marlas situated in village Chaki Sheera Tehsil Khan Sahab District Budgam falling under different khasra numbers ['subject land'], which was taken over by the Horticulture Department in the year 1958 from the petitioner's father on the basis of oral lease. It is pleaded by the petitioner that during the life time of her father, no rental compensation was ever paid nor same was ever offered to the petitioner after the death of her father. The petitioner claims that at the time of her father's death she was minor and was thus, not aware about the occupation of the said land by the respondents. It is only after she attained majority and came to know that a big chunk of land belonging to her father was under the unauthorized occupation of the Horticulture Department without payment of any compensation, rental or otherwise. She approached different authorities including the then Minister, Department of Horticulture to intervene in the matter. Some correspondence between the different functionaries of the Government ensued but without any fruitful results. This constrained the petitioner to file the writ petition bearing OWP No. 951/2012 in this Court.

5. On being put on notice, respondents entered their appearance and filed detailed objections. In their objections, respondents have not disputed that they are the occupants of the subject land without of any compensation. However, the plea taken by the respondents is that the father of the petitioner, who reportedly died in the year 1952, never claimed any compensation, rental or otherwise from the respondents during his life-time nor the petitioner, who claims to be the sole legal heir of the owner of subject land, ever approached them. The plea of delay and latches was set up as the defence to the claim put-forth by the petitioner. Respondents have also denied that there was any lease-deed or agreement between the father of the petitioner and the respondents ever executed. The plea of the petitioner that there was oral understanding between the father of the petitioner and the respondents to let out the subject land, is also denied by the respondents. In the backdrop aforesaid, the writ petition, claiming reliefs prayed for, came to be filed.

6. The writ petition came up for consideration before the writ court and the same was dismissed by the writ court vide judgment dated 18.03.2019, impugned in this appeal.

7. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground that right of property is a constitutional right and globally recognized human right and therefore, the State cannot take over the property of its citizens unauthorizedly and then set up the defence of delay and latches or raise the plea of