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