Bachan Singh vs Union Of India on 4 August, 2025

0
4

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
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here