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

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday delivered a scathing rebuke to the UT administration for its arbitrary demolition of properties owned by one Abdul Majid, a 69-year-old resident of Bathindi, Jammu.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...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags