The court affirmed the petitioners' fundamental right to property and directed the expeditious acquisition of land occupied by the Army, ensuring due process and compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, through the medium of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate the acquisition proceedings for acquiring land measuring 11 kanals 08 marlas comprising of khasra No. 234 min situated at village Phulliana, Tehsil and District Rajouri in the light of fact that the process of land for acquisition was recommended to be initiated in the year 2009 by the Board of Officers convened for examining the acquisition of land in question.

2. With a view to understand the controversy in its correct perspective, it is deemed appropriate to give the material facts in brief:

2.1 The petitioners claiming to be the owners of the land measuring 11 kanals 08 marlas comprising of khasra No. 234 min situated at village Phulliana, Tehsil and District Rajouri assert that the said land measuring 11 kanals was unauthorizedly occupied by the Army in the year 1954 and the rest of the land measuring 08 marlas in the year 1976; that the petitioners and their predecessors had been running from pillar to post requesting the army authorities either to regularize their unauthorized occupation or to hand over the vacant possession of the land unauthorizedly occupied by the Army; that formal handing/taking over of the land in question was carried out on 7^th of Nov., 2000; that the Tehsildar Rajouri vide his communication No. OQ/1327 dated 24.01.2001 certified that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation for the land in question.

2.2 It is further stated in the petition that after a long struggle of more than 50 years, the respondents regularized their unauthorized occupation over the land in question by executing an agreement dated 21.02.2008 with the petitioner No. 5 for hiring of land, in terms of which rent @ Rs. 30,780/- per annum, for land in question was fixed; that Board of Officers was convened to examine the issue of acquisition of the land in question and accordingly the Board of Officers assembled on 21.04.2009, after careful inspection of site and examining of relevant revenue record and the record of the respondent No. 3 and further examining the use of the land to which it was being put recommended that the land measuring 12 kanals 11 marlas including the land measuring 11 kanals and 08 marlas belonging to the petitioners be acquired for Army on priority basis.

2.3 It is urged in the petition that on the basis of the recommendations made by the Board of Officers, respondent No. 3 vide his communication No. JKR/281/ACQ/DEO dated 25.02.2010 requested the respondent-Deputy Commissioner (District Collector) Rajouri, to process the case for obtaining NOC for acquisition of the land from Home Department of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir; that vide communication No. JKR/281/ACQ/DEO/5 dated 7^th of April, 2010 respondent No. 3-Defence Estates Officer, Northern Command, requested the Army authorities to obtain "In Principle Approval‟ of Ministry of Defence for acquisition of the land in question; that the respondent- Collector despite lapse of more than nine years failed to seek NOC for acquisition of the land from Home Department of the State of J&K and the Army Authorities also failed to obtain "In Principle Approval‟ of Ministry of Defence for acquisition of the land in question.

2.4 Lastly, it is stated that the petitioners are left with no other efficacious remedy but to approach this Court on the ground that the right to property is a fundamental right in the State of J&K, as such, the right of ownership vesting in the petitioners cannot be taken away without adopting due course of law and paying compensation to the petitioners, hence this writ petition.

3. Pursuant to notice, objections have been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 wherein it is admitted that the land of the petitioners was occupied by the Army from the years 1972 and 1976 and not from the year 1954 as alleged by the petitioners in their petition; that the matter