Right to property j&k and ladakh high court directs army to pay 46 years of rent for land occupation

Right to property j&k and ladakh high court directs army to pay 46 years of rent for land occupation

NEW DELHI: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh high court has directed the Indian Army to pay rent accumulated over 46 years for occupying a piece of private land since 1978. The verdict was delivered on November 20 by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, who pointed out that the right to property now firmly resides within the ambit of human rights.

‘The right to property is now considered not only a constitutional or statutory right but it falls within the realm of human rights. Human rights encompass fundamental individual rights such as the right to shelter, livelihood, health, and employment, and over the years, these rights have gained multifaceted dimensions,’ Justice Nargal observed in his judgment.

The petition was filed in 2014 by Abdul Majeed Lone, who claimed that his 1.6-acre plot in Tangdhar, near the Line of Control in Kupwara district, had been occupied by the Army since 1978. Lone alleged that he had not received any compensation or rent for using his land over the decades.

The Centre's counsel denied that the Army had occupied the land in its defense. However, a survey conducted by the revenue department confirmed that the Army had indeed been in possession of the land since 1978. The court, relying on the survey report, held that the petitioner had been deprived of his rights without due process.

‘The state, in the exercise of its power of 'eminent domain,' may interfere with a person's right to property by acquiring the same, but this must be for a public purpose, and reasonable compensation must be paid,’ the court said.

Justice Nargal noted that the state and its agencies cannot dispossess citizens of their property without adhering to legal procedures. The court further clarified that the obligation to provide compensation, though not explicitly stated in Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, could be inferred from it.

‘The facts mentioned above clearly reveal that the respondents have violated the basic rights of the petitioner and have deprived him of a valuable constitutional right without following the procedure envisaged under law,’ the court noted, adding that such actions amounted to a gross violation of human rights.

The court directed the Army to clear the outstanding rent within a month. It also ordered a fresh survey of the land to ensure the petitioner is compensated appropriately.

This ruling comes in line with a previous Supreme Court judgment, which declared that the right to own private property is a human right. It held that the state cannot trespass into private property and later claim ownership under the guise of 'adverse possession.'