Right to property is human right: J&K, Ladakh HC asks Army to pay 46 yrs rent to land owner

Srinagar, Nov 28 (PTI) The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently held that the right to property now falls within the realm of human rights.

Disposing of a petition on November 20, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal directed the Army, which had occupied the parcel of the petitioner’s land since 1978, to pay the rent accumulated over the last 46 years within a month.

“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 have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment etc and over the years, human rights have gained a multifaceted dimension,” the judge underlined.

According to the petition filed by one Abdul Majeed Lone in 2014, the Army occupied his land measuring 1.6 acre at Tangdhar near the LoC Kupwara District in 1978. He claimed he had not received any compensation or the rent for his land.

“The state in exercise of its power of ’eminent domain’ may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose, and therefore, reasonable compensation must be paid,” the court held.

While the Centre’s counsel contended that the Army had not occupied the land, the revenue department confirmed it had been in the possession of the Army since 1978.

The court ordered a fresh survey with regard to the land in question and found through a report of the revenue authorities that it had been in the Army’s possession since 1978. It further observed that the land owner had never received any rent or compensation.

“The facts mentioned above clearly reveal that the respondents have violated the basic rights of the petitioner and have deprived him of the valuable constitutional right without following the procedure as envisaged under law”, the court noted.

The verdict underscored that he state and its agencies could “dispossess a citizen of his property” except in accordance with law.

“The obligation to pay the compensation though not expressly included in Article 300A can be inferred from the said article,” it added.