J&K High Court Slams Arbitrary Demolition Of Senior Citizen's Property, Orders Payment Of ₹86 Lakhs For 'Clandestine' Action

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while allowing two writ petitions declared the demolition illegal, restored Majid's ownership rights, and awarded him ₹76.4 lakh in compensation for damages, along with an additional ₹10 lakh as punitive costs for the "clandestine and high-handed" actions of the authorities.

“.. Besides, the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of J&K is also directed to conduct an in-depth enquiry within a period of two months from today and on the basis of the findings of the said enquiry, take suitable action including penal measures to ensure accountability of individual officers who have acted in violation of the law in the instant case”, Justice Nargal directed.

Background:

The dispute centered around 12 kanals of land which Majid purchased through registered sale deeds (2000–2004). The land had been mutated in his favor, and he constructed the "Grand Hill" restaurant in 2012 after obtaining necessary permissions. However, in 2020, the Tehsildar of Jammu abruptly canceled the mutations citing irregularities under Government Orders (GOs) LB-6/C (1958) and S-432 (1966), which originally granted proprietary rights to occupants of state land. The Forest Department later demolished Majid's structures in 2022, claiming the land was forest property.

Majid challenged the cancellation of mutations and the demolition, arguing violations of natural justice, misinterpretation of GOs, and lack of due process. The respondents, including the Revenue and Forest Departments, contended the mutations were fraudulent and the land was "Banjar Qadim" (barren) or "Ghair Mumkin" (uncultivable), making it ineligible for regularization.

Legal Questions And Court's Observations:

In order to arrive at a just and fair disposal of the matter the Court framed several critical questions, addressing administrative overreach, property rights, and the interpretation of GOs LB-6/C and S-432.

On the issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition the Court held the petition maintainable despite Majid not directly challenging the Collector's order, as the Tehsildar's derivative order (based on the Collector's directive) violated his rights. Observing that the respondents had concealed the Collector's order, the court stated,

“.. The order issued by the Tehsildar is a derivative of the order issued by the Collector, which was needed to be communicated to the petitioner by the respondents. As the order issued by the Collector was concealed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be denied relief or placed at a disadvantageous position for failing to contest it”.

On the point of the authority of the Tehsildar to cancel a revenue mutation Justice Nargal ruled that neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the Tehsildar had the power to cancel mutations administratively. Such actions required quasi-judicial proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, the bench stated and cited precedent Om Prakash v. UT of J&K to emphasize that mutations cannot be revoked without due process.

Expounding on the mandate of GOs LB-6/C (1958) and S-432 (1966) which gave "tenant-at-will" status to 1957–58 cultivators of state land and later granted them ownership, with conditions like a bar on transfer without government nod respectively, the Court dismantled the respondent's claim that "Banjar Qadim" land was excluded from regularization under GO LB-6/C.

It clarified that the exclusion clause (Paragraph 2) applied only to specific categories (e.g., displaced persons), not to lands like Majid's. The proviso "land neither virgin nor recorded as Banjar Qadim" was misread by authorities, the bench clarified and stated that it actually included such lands under the regularization scheme.

It added,

“LB6/C does not extinguish the ownership of the state over the land in occupation of a person who becomes tenant-at-will after satisfying the requisite conditions. Attestation of mutation would be of no consequence so for as his right accrued under LB6/C is concerned”.

Noting that Majid's predecessors had complied with these orders, and the government's belated challenge after 62 years was "arbitrary and unconscionable”, Justice Nargal observed,

“ .. the Government cannot, after 62 years, reverse this decision by asserting that benefits under LB-6/C cannot be conferred due to the beneficiary's lack of cultivation, especially when proprietary rights have already been established for the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner. The Government, after maintaining a prolonged silence for 62 years, has emerged from its inertia and adopted a position that astonishes the Court's conscience, which is impermissible under the law and contradicts the established record”

Spotlighting the violation of natural Justice in the instant case the court stated that the cancellation of mutations and demolition were conducted without notice or hearing. The Court condemned the "Sunday demolition" as a "clandestine abuse of power," violating Article 300A (right to property) and the principle of audi alteram partem.

Terming the arbitrary demolition a grave violation of Rule of Law the Court reserved its strongest condemnation for the manner in which the demolition was carried out. Justice Nargal observed,

“.. on 27 March 2022, which serendipitously occurred on a Sunday when the courts were closed, the second respondent (DFO), accompanied by a team of officers and police personnel, conducted the unlawful demolition of structures on the petitioner's property. The eviction was executed surreptitiously, without compliance with the legal protocols or stipulations prescribed by law”,

Quoting the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash, the Court reiterated that "bulldozer justice has no place in a constitutional democracy." It emphasized that demolitions must follow strict procedural safeguards, including prior notice, opportunity for hearing, and a reasonable time to challenge the order.

In a sweeping relief for the petitioner, the Court quashed the Tehsildar's order canceling mutations and declared the demolition illegal. It also Awarded ₹76.4 lakh as compensation for reconstruction (calculated at government rates), payable within one month (with 6% interest for delays). Furthermore, the Court imposed ₹10 lakh punitive costs on the UT for its "conscious-shocking conduct."

Case Title: Abdul Majid Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 179

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment