Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Oct 5: High Court has dismissed the plea seeking compensation and rent on the defence land after the court pointed out that the land pertains to the Government of India with the agreement by and between the then President of India and the erstwhile State of J&K.
The petitioner Zahoor Ahmad Wani was seeking quashment of order dated 24th September 2013, passed by Defence Estates Officer, Kashmir Circle, whereby his claim as owner of the land in question was rejected. He also was seeking a direction to respondent to derequisition of the land of petitioner measuring 46 Kanals and 18 Marlas and hand over possession thereof to him with a further direction to respondents to release the arrears of rent in his favour.
The case set up by petitioner-Wani was that in the year 1952, a big chunk of land was requisitioned for establishing Airport at Srinagar and the said action at that time was taken on the understanding and assurance that landowners will be paid rent compensation. It is contended that at that point of time, the Government of India could not acquire the land in erstwhile State of J&K because of legal position then in force and thereafter J&K Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, was enforced in the year 1968, but in the said Act, no time period of requisition of private property by the Government was prescribed.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice V C Koul said it is discernable that in terms of the Agreement, it was, provided that all properties and assets would vest in the Union of India viz all properties and assets pertaining to Jammu and Kashmir State Forces as they stood on the 1st September 1949, all properties and assets pertaining to the Telegraphs and Telephones Department of the State as they stood on 16th September 1953, all properties and assets pertaining to the portion of the Sialkot Jammu Railway falling within Jammu and Kashmir and all properties and assets used for the purposes of air transport.
The status, nature and geographical location of these Khasra numbers and their recorded position does not confirm the claim of petitioner-Wani to be the absolute owner of land out of these Khasra numbers and that petitioner-Wani by adopting illegal means managed to mutate the property in his favour in the year 2011 and is misleading the court by taking the dispute to 1952.
“The facts made mention of by respondents qua land in question and its ownership, cannot be said to be incorrect as such factual aspects of the matter need to be adjudicated upon in civil proceedings and not in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The serious disputed questions of fact which require consideration of evidence, are not to be decided in a petition under Article 226”, DB recorded.
“This writ petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated”, court concluded.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel