Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Bachan Singh vs Union Of India on 4 August, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on 01.05.2025 Pronounced on 04.08.2025 WP(C) No. 2006/2023 1. Bachan Singh, Age 85 years, S/o .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Gopal Singh, R/o Village Phalyana, Ward No. 17, Rajouri Municipal Corporation, Tehsil Rajouri, District Rajouri, UT of J&K. Through: Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, Advocate Vs 1. Union of India, through Defence ..... Respondent(s) Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2. Director General Defence Estates, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulaan Baatar Marg, Delhi Cantonment- 10. 3. Principal Director Defence Estates, Northern Command, Jammu Cantonment. 4. Assistant Defence Estates Officer, Rajouri. 5. General Officer Commanding, HQ 10 Infantry Division, C/o 56 APO. 6. UT of J&K, through Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 7. Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri (Competent Authority under the RAIP Act) 8. Collector Land Acquisition Defence District Rajouri. Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE 2 2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072 WP(C) No. 2006/2023 JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner claims to be co-owner, having one-third share in land
measuring 27 kanals 15 marlas situated at village Phalyana, Tehsil
Rajouri comprising Khasra No. 23 (03 kanals-04 marlas) Khasra No.
210 (00-04 marlas), khasra No. 211 (04kanals-11marlas), Khasra No.
220 (00-10marlas) Khasra No. 221 (02 kanals-12 marlas, Khasra No.
206 (01 kanal-01 marla) Khasra No. 24 (00-18 marlas) Khasra No. 224
(11kanals-05marlas) and Khasra No. 223 (03 kanals-11 marlas). It is
stated that though the possession of the abovementioned land was taken
over by the Army in the year 1961-62 but the compensation is being paid
for 25 kanals and 5 marlas of land only.The land measuring 2 kanals 10
marlas has been in occupation of the Army ever since 1961-62, yet the
respondents have neither reflected the same as requisitioned land in the
records nor paid any rental compensation to the petitioner.
2. The case projected by the petitioner in present petition is that on
30.10.2019 after coming into effect of the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganization Act, 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act of
1968’), has been repealed and The Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act of 1952) has been
made applicable to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. In terms
of Section 6 (1-A) of the Act of 1952, it becomes mandatory for the
Government to release the requisitioned property to the petitioner from
requisition as the period of 17 years expired on 01.11.2020, on the
3
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072
WP(C) No. 2006/2023
analogy of amendment made in the Limitation Act, which provides for
extension of period of limitation by one year after the commencement of
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 in cases where the period
of limitation provided in Limitation Act, 1963 is shorter than the period
of limitation provided in the Limitation Act of the erstwhile State of
J&K. The respondents as such are under obligation either to place indent
for acquisition of land or hand over the possession of the land to the
petitioner.
3. By placing these facts before this Court, the petitioner has sought the
issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to pay the
rental compensation for the land measuring 02 kanals 10 marlas from the
date of its requisition and remaining land measuring 25 kanals and 05
marlas situated at situated at village Phalyana, Tehsil Rajouri from
01.04.2020 to 31.10.2022 at the rates notified by the Government from
time to time alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and further the
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be directed to pay the damages @ Rs. 9,27,520/-
per kanal with effect from 01.11.2020 till the land is formally acquired
or the vacant possession is handed over back to the petitioner. The
petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to
either place the indent for acquisition of land under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 or in the alternative hand over the vacant
possession of the land to the petitioner.
4
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072
WP(C) No. 2006/2023
4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed the response stating therein that in
terms of Section 6(1-A) of the Act of 1952 made applicable to the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir with effect from 30.10.2019, the
answering respondents can acquire the land on or before the expiry of 17
years with effect from 30.10.2019 and unless, such property is acquired
within the aforesaid period of 17 years, the said property is required to
be released to the owners. It is stated that the full rental compensation
for land requisitioned by the Army is being released in favour of the
rightful owners through Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri. The factum of
non-payment of compensation with regard to land measuring 02 kanals
and 10 marlas can be ascertained/confirmed by the respondent Nos. 7 &
8, who are the custodians of the revenue records. The respondents have
placed on record the minutes of the meeting held on 08.01.2021 in
respect of the issue arisen because of implementation of the Act of 1952
in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
5. The respondent Nos. 7 & 8 have also filed the response, stating therein
as per record, the land falling under khasra No. 23 (03K-04M), 210 (00
K-04M), 211 (04K-11M), 220 (00K-10M) 221 (02K-12M) 206 (01K-
01M) 24(00K-17 M) 224 (11K-05M) 223(03K-11M) situated in village
Phalyana Tehsil Rajouri was an evacuee land recorded as Maqbooza
Mehkma Diffa. However, the same has been allotted and further mutated
u/s 3(A) of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 in favour of the father of the
petitioner, which was not supposed to be mutated as the land was
recorded as Maqbooza Diffa (under the occupation of defence). The
5
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072
WP(C) No. 2006/2023
claim of the petitioner is not genuine except land comprising khasra No.
223. It is further stated that the land measuring 2 kanals and 10 marlas is
recorded under the occupation of defence ever since 1961-1962 but the
petitioner has managed to get the mutation attested in the year- 2003 for
which he is not entitled.
6. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the
averments made in the writ petition. It is, however, stated that in terms
of Clause 2 (14) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of
Difficulties) Order 2019, any notification issued under any law shall be
deemed to have been issued under the corresponding provisions of the
Central Law, now extended and applicable to the Union Territory of
J&K and Union Territory of Ladakh and all the actions are deemed to
have been done under the Central Laws, even if they were originally
done under the local laws. It is further stated that the retroactive
applicability of the Act of 1952 is further strengthened by the provisions
of Section 23 of the Act of 1952 when read in aid with Section 97 of
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. The 25th day of January
1952 as mentioned in Section 23 of the Act of 1952 must be construed as
31.10.2019. Precisely, it is stated by the petitioner that the land
requisitioned in the year 1961-62 under the Act of 1968 after its repeal
on 31.10.2019 and in view of Clause 2 (14) of the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganization (Removal of difficulties ) Order 2019, read with section
23 of the Act of 1952, is deemed to be requisitioned under the Act of
1952, therefore, in terms of Section 6 (1-A)(a) of the Act 1952, the
6
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072
WP(C) No. 2006/2023
period of 17 years stands already expired, as such, the respondents are
under obligation to either acquire the land, if they intend to retain it or
release the same.
7. Mr. Jatinder Choudhay, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
in terms of Section 2(14) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization
(Removal of difficulties) Order 2019, the land of the petitioner
requisitioned by the respondents 1 to 5 in the year 1961-62, shall be
deemed to have been requisitioned under the Act of 1952,
notwithstanding the fact that it was requisitioned under the Act of 1968.
He has further submitted that in view of section 6(1-A) of Act of 1952,
the land deemed to have been requisitioned is required to be released
after expiry of the 17 years and in the instant case 17 years stood already
expired and even if by invoking the amendment made in the Limitation
Act, extension of one year is granted still the period expired on
01.11.2020. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in case of Rajesh Kumar and other vs. Union of India and
others bearing OWP No. 187/2011 decided on 08.12.2021.
8. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI has argued that the period
of 17 years is to be reckoned from the date, the Act of 2019 came into
effect and even in terms of Clause-b of Section 6 (1-A) of Act of 1952,
the respondents have a right to remain in possession of the property for
17 years from 31.10.2019. He has further argued that even if the
property is deemed to be requisitioned under the Act of 1952, the period
7
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072
WP(C) No. 2006/2023
of limitation of 17 years is to be counted only from the date when the
requisition and acquisition of the immovable property (Amendment Act
1970) came into effect, which is 31.10.2019. Precisely, the arguments of
Mr. Vishal Sharma is that even if the property is to be treated as
requisitioned under the Act of 1952, but after the commencement of the
Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property (Amendment
Act 1970), the period of 17 years is to be reckoned when the amendment
Act of 1970 was put into effect i.e. 31.10.2019.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that any property
requisitioned under the Act of 1968 as was applicable in the erstwhile
State of J&K is deemed to be property requisitioned under the Act of
1952 in terms of Clause 2 (14) of the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order 2019, which provides
that anything done or any action taken including any appointment or
delegation made notification, instruction or direction issued, form, bye
law or Scheme framed, certificate obtained, permit or licence granted or
registration effected or agreement executed under any law shall be
deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions
of the Central law, now extended and applicable to the Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh and shall
continue to be in force accordingly, unless and until superseded by
anything done or any action taken under the Central law now extended.
8
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072
WP(C) No. 2006/2023
11. Admittedly, the Act of 1968 stands repealed and the Act of 1952 has
come into operation. In terms of Clause 2 (14) of the Jammu and
Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order 2019, any land
acquisitioned under the Act of 1968 is deemed to be requisitioned under
the Act of 1952. It is contended by the petitioner that in terms of Clause
6(1-A) of Act of 1952, the respondents are under obligations to either
acquire the land or release the land, as the period of 17 years prescribed
in Section 6 (1-A) of the Act of 1952, stands already expired.
12. To adjudicate the issue at hand, it is deemed proper to extract Section 6
(1-A) of the Act of 1952, which is as under:
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the
Central Government shall release from requisition,–
(a) any property requisitioned or deemed to be requisitioned
under this Act before the commencement of the Requisitioning
and Acquisition of Immovable Property (Amendment) Act,
1970 (1 of 1970), on or before the expiry of a period of
seventeen years from such commencement;
(b) any property requisitioned under this Act after such
commencement, on or before the expiry of a period of seventeen
years from the date on which possession of such property was
surrendered or delivered to, or taken by, the competent authority
under section 4.
unless such property is acquired under section 7 within the
period of 1 [seventeen years] aforesaid.]
13. Section 6(1-A)(a) of the Act of 1952 contemplates a situation for release
of land from requisition any property requisitioned or deemed to be
requisitioned under the Act of 1952 before the commencement of
Requisitioning and Acquisition of the immovable property (Amendment
Act 1970), on or before 17 years of such commencement. So far as
‘deemed requisition’ of the property is concerned, Section 23(1) of Act
9
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072
WP(C) No. 2006/2023
of 1952 provides that all immovable property, which purports to have
been requisitioned by a State Government for any public purpose, being
a purpose of the Union, under any Provincial or State Act which,
immediately before the 25th day of January, 1952 was used or occupied
by the Central Government or by an officer or authority subordinate to
that Government shall, as from that date, shall be deemed to be property
duly requisitioned under Section 3 of this Act (Act of 1952). In order to
bring any immovable property within the definition of “deemed
requisitioned” that immovable property must have been requisitioned by
the State Government for any public purpose for the purpose of the
Union, under any provincial or State Act, immediately before the 25th
day of January, 1952, used or occupied by the Central Government or by
an officer or authority subordinate to that Government. So far as land of
the petitioner is concerned, as per the own admission of the petitioner,
his land came to be taken over by the Army in the year 1961-62 and
requisitioned under the Act, 1968, therefore, the land of the petitioner
does not fall within the meaning of ‘deemed requisition’ under the Act
of 1952.
14. Besides, even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the property
is deemed to be requisitioned under the Act of 1952, still the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of the immovable property (Amendment
Act 1970) came into effect only on 31.10.2019 in the Union Territory of
J&K. In that eventuality as well, the period of 17 years as mentioned
under Section 6(1-A) (a), shall be reckoned from 31.10.2019.
10
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072
WP(C) No. 2006/2023
15. Section 6 (I-A)(b) of the Act 1952 will operate only when the property is
requisitioned under the Act of 1952 after commencement of Act of 1970.
This provision cannot be applied in case of the petitioner as the property
was not requisitioned under the Act of 1952 after the commencement of
Act of 1970.
16. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
case titled “Rajesh Kumar and other vs. Union of India and others”
(supra), it has been observed that with the applicability of the Act of
1952, by legal fiction requisitioned property is requisitioned under the
said Act and all other provisions of the Act has also come into play. The
said judgment has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to submit that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be directed to take a
decision whether they require the land or not and if they require the land,
they must acquire the same. As already mentioned above, the period of
17 years is to be reckoned from 31.10.2019 and the respondent Nos. 1 to
5 have every right to remain in occupation for 17 years w.e.f. 31.10.2019
and before the expiry of 17 years, they also have a right to acquire the
same. It is only after expiry of 17 years that the said land can be
released. In view of the above, this Court does not find any substance in
the contention raised by the petitioner. The same is, accordingly,
rejected.
17. The other contention raised by the petitioner is that the land measuring 2
kanals and 10 marlas has also been requisitioned by the respondents 1 to
11
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2072
WP(C) No. 2006/2023
5, but the same has not been reflected in the requisition record and no
compensation has been paid to the petitioner.
18. In that view of the matter, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 can examine the
claim of the petitioner and if it is found that the land measuring 2 kanals
and 10 marlas is in possession of Army, respondent No.8 shall intimate
the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the amount payable to the petitioner and
other co-sharers in accordance with their shares, and thereafter the same
be paid to the petitioner with effect from the date the respondent Nos. 1
to 5 got the possession of the above mentioned land alongwith interest @
6% per annum from the date the rental compensation became due till its
actual payment. The entire exercise be completed within the period of
three months from today.
19. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu:
04.08.2025
Karam Chand/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes