Justice M.A. Chowdhary held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation under Section 14-A of the J&K Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, after the authorities had already recognised their entitlement to restoration of the land but failed to provide either the land or compensation for more than four decades.

The Court noted that the matter had remained pending with the authorities since 1981, when the Additional Custodian had held that the petitioners' predecessors were entitled to restoration of the property. However, since the land had already been allotted to a displaced person and no alternative land was available in the village, the authorities had recommended payment of compensation.

Background

The petition was filed by Mohd. Bashir and four others, all residents of Thandi Kassi, Tehsil and District Rajouri, seeking restoration of 24 kanals, or, in the alternative, payment of compensation at the prevailing market rate.

The petitioners asserted that their land had been declared evacuee property under Section 6 of the J&K Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act without issuing notice to its owners. The land was subsequently allotted to one Amar Chand, son of Thakur Dass, a displaced person.

Aggrieved by the declaration, the predecessors of the petitioners approached the Additional Custodian, Rajouri, under Section 8 of the Act. By an order dated April 2, 1981, the Additional Custodian held that they had not migrated to Pakistan and that their property had been wrongly declared evacuee property. Their claim for restoration was accordingly recognised.

However, as the land had already been allotted to a displaced person, the authorities found that physical restoration was not practicable. The Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, therefore reported that no alternative land of a similar nature was available in the village and recommended that compensation be paid to the restorees under Section 14-A of the Act.

The Custodian General subsequently took up the matter with the Revenue Department. The Revenue Secretary also sought the relevant record and restoration order from the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, in August 2006. Despite these communications and the recommendation for compensation, the petitioners were neither allotted alternative land nor paid compensation, prompting them to approach the High Court.

The respondents, in their replies, maintained that the Evacuee Property Department was not the authority responsible for allowing compensation and that the matter was to be dealt with by the other concerned authorities, subject to their satisfaction regarding the process of restoration.

The Revenue Department also acknowledged that the land had been declared evacuee property and allotted to a displaced person, who was subsequently conferred ownership rights under Section 3-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.

Court's Observation

Justice Chowdhary noted that the record clearly established that the land measuring 24 kanals and 1 marla had been declared evacuee property and allotted to Amar Chand. However, the owners had successfully challenged the declaration under Section 8 of the Act, and the Additional Custodian had, by the order dated April 2, 1981, recognised their entitlement to restoration.

The Court observed that since the land had already been allotted to a displaced person and no alternative land was available in the village, the authorities had themselves referred the matter for payment of compensation under Section 14-A of the Act.

The Court examined Section 14-A, which provides for transfer of Government property to an applicant in lieu of evacuee property or acquisition of land allotted to a displaced person, where restoration of the original property is not expedient or practicable.

Taking note of the prolonged inaction of the authorities, the Court observed that the petitioners had been waiting for compensation or alternative land for more than four and a half decades, despite their entitlement to restoration having been recognised.

The Court recorded,

“The matter has been pending with the respondents since 1981 when they were held entitled to the restoration of the land. Even after more than four and a half decade, the petitioners have still been waiting for the compensation to be paid or in the alternative to be allotted some State land, in lieu of their land having been used for the settlement of a displaced person.”

The Court held that the order passed by the Additional Custodian, Rajouri, recognising the petitioners' entitlement to restoration, had attained finality. Since the land could not be physically restored because it had been allotted to a displaced person, and no alternative land was available, the petitioners were entitled to compensation.

It accordingly held that the compensation payable to the petitioners was required to be assessed by the Government.

Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court directed the respondents to assess compensation at the prevalent market rate and make payment to the petitioners for the land measuring 24 kanals and 1 marla falling under Khasra No. 51 at Village Thandi Kassi, Tehsil and District Rajouri.

The Court directed the Revenue Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, to complete the exercise within eight weeks from the date a copy of the judgment is made available to the Administrative Secretary of the Revenue Department.