RAHUL BHARTI
Kala Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Nothing can be more befitting starter to this judgment than an observation adored with realization of constitutional guardianship of the rights of an Indian citizen/subject qua his/her property as served by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled 'State of Punjab Vs Gurdial Singh & Ors' reported in 1980 AIR SC 319. One liner statement bearing an awakening edict embedded in para 16 is by Justice Krishna Iyer and which is, 'It is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and smaller the man the more serious the matter.'
3. The present case bears a paradox which is that the petitioners acted as law abiding citizens despite being the sufferer as against the respondents 3 to 5 who had opted to act as law avoiding public officials being found disturbing the sensitivity of afore-cited statement on a serious note as a small piece of property of an ordinary family of the petitioners was taken by seizure & usurpation by the J&K Police least serious for and without bearing any semblance of process of law. To add an insult to the injury, the J&K Police, acting post-facto, dictated an offer of rent
The court established the importance of proper rent assessment for private property occupied by the police and emphasized the distinction between 'eminent domain' and 'police power' of the State.
The State cannot dispossess individuals of property without proper legal processes, affirming the entitlement to compensation for land occupied without due course of law.
Point of Law : Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uniformed by reason is per se arbitrary.
The State Government exceeded its jurisdiction under the U.P. Rent Control Act by restoring a sub-letting order that contravenes established tenant rights, emphasizing the requirement that tenants oc....
The entitlement to proprietary rights under the J&K Migrant Immovable Property Act, 1997 and the issuance of a writ of mandamus to enforce such rights.
The court affirmed that police protection can be ordered to implement civil injunctions, emphasizing the judiciary's role in upholding property rights against unlawful interference.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.