According to the petition filed by Abdul Majeed Lone in 2014, the Army occupied his land measuring 1.6 acres at Tangdhar.

According to the petition filed by Abdul Majeed Lone in 2014, the Army occupied his land measuring 1.6 acres at Tangdhar.

According to the petition filed by Abdul Majeed Lone in 2014, the Army occupied his land measuring 1.6 acres at Tangdhar.

Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reaffirmed that the right to property is fundamental to human dignity and cannot be compromised without legal process and fair compensation.

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

"The state, in the 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

"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 the law", the court noted.

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

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