IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Nazir Ahmad Shah - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
OWP No.818 of 2016
Decided On : 30-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has challenged order No.2403 of 2015 dated 08.08.2015 to the extent of not granting occupation charges of the land belonging to the petitioner and respondent No.7 w.e.f. 15.04.2010 to 19.01.2015 as also to the extent of area of occupied land, which has been shown as 17 kanals 12 marlas instead of 25 kanals and 17½ marlas.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case which emanate from the pleadings of the parties are that the land comprised in Khasra Nos.2028/415, 2030/41, 2031/415, 2075/423, 2077/423, 2078/423, 2079/423, 2080/423, 2081/423, 413 and 414 in Estate Zainakote Tehsil Centre, Shalteng, Srinagar, along with structures raised thereon belonging to the petitioner and respondent No.7, came to be occupied by the Security Forces with effect from 27.11.2005. According to the petitioner, the total land that was occupied by the Security Forces is measuring 25 kanals and 17 marlas whereas stand of the official respondents is that only 20 kanals of land, out of the big chunk of land measuring 25 kanals and 17 marlas belonging to the petitioner and respondent No.7, was occupied by the Security Forces. There is also dispute as regard the date on which the Security Forces vacated the property in question and handed over the possession thereof to the owners. According to the petitioner, the property in question remained in occupation of the official respondents until 19.01.2015 when certificate of handing over/taking over was executed by the petitioner, whileas the official respondents claim that the Security Forces vacated the property on 14.04.2010 and it was due to the reasons attributable to the petitioner that he did not take over possession of the property until 19.01.2015, therefore, they are liable to pay occupation charges/rent only upto 14.04.2010.
3. There is yet another relevant fact which is required to be noticed. The structures raised on the land in question are alleged to have been raised by the son of the petitioner, namely, Masood Ahmad Shah, which is being disputed by respondent No.7. Said Shri Masood Ahmad Shah had filed a writ petition bearing OWP No.184/2010 seeking a direction upon the official respondents to make assessment of the structures raised on the aforesaid land and to release the rent in his favour. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 03.07.2001 and it was provided that the rent deposited before the Registry on account of the occupational charges of these structures shall be released by the District Judge, Srinagar, after determining entitlement of the parties to receive the said amount. The area of land underneath these structures is stated to be 02 kanals 08 marlas.
4. The District Level Rent Assessment Committee in its meeting held on 20.01.2015 assessed the rent for the aforesaid land measuring 25 kanals and 17 marlas @Rs.14,538.50/ per month upto 15th February, 2008, in terms of SRO 325 dated 02.12.2005 and @Rs.72,690.20/ per month from 16th February, 2008, onwards in terms of SRO 104 dated 11.04.2008. So far as the structures existing on the land in question, which were in occupation of the Security Forces are concerned, the District Level Rent Assessment Committee, Srinagar, assessed the rent for the same @ Rs.32,618/ per month in favour of Shri Masood Ahmad Shah, the son of the petitioner.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid assessments made by the District Level Rent Assessment Committees, the Director General of Police issued sanction order No.2403 of 2015 dated 08.08.2015, whereby sanction was accorded to the grant of rent @Rs32,618/per month for the structures with effect from 27.11.2005 to 14.04.2010 and for grant of rent for the land measuring 17 kanals and 12 marlas (excluding land measuring 02 kanals 08 marlas underneath the structures belonging to the petitioner and respondent No.7) @Rs.6750/ per kanal per annum with effect from 27.11.2005 to 15.02.2008 and @Rs.33,750/ per kanal per annum with effect f
The petitioner is not entitled to occupational charges beyond the date of vacation by Security Forces, and claims for additional land are declined unless rent for underlying land is not considered.
The right to property under Article 300A cannot be infringed without due process, and unilateral actions to fix rental charges without consent are invalid.
Point of Law : Land Tribunal is bound by the statutory presumption as to entries made in record of rights and order of the Tribunal without any reference to such entries and having no discussion as ....
The court upheld the rent fixed by the Committee as fair, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to prove valid ownership of the land.
Petitioners are entitled to rental compensation for unauthorized occupation of land by the Indian Army from 1980 to 2021, to be assessed and disbursed by the Deputy Commissioner.
whether fundamental or constitutional, the fact remains that it has always been recognized as a right guaranteed under the Constitution in favour of a citizen/person and no persons can be deprived of....
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.