The Supreme Court of India has directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to pay rental fees and land acquisition compensation to a descendant of landowners whose property was forcibly seized over seven decades ago to construct a police station.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana ruled on Monday that while fresh acquisition proceedings cannot be initiated at current market dates due to a nearly 70-year delay, the petitioner should not suffer hardship caused by illegal state action.
The top court instructed the local land acquisition officer to commence acquisition proceedings effective retroactively from 2021, the year petitioner Abdul Rashid Wani first filed a petition in the high court. The bench also ordered the officer to calculate and award rental compensation for the occupation of the land dating back to 1953. The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court will make the final determination on the exact acquisition valuation and rental amounts.
Unlawful Seizure and Property Details
The legal dispute centers on seven kanals and 18 marlas of land bearing survey number 525 at Mouza Kangan in Ganderbal district. State authorities took possession of the site in 1953 to construct the Kangan police station without completing formal acquisition proceedings or paying compensation to the original owners.
Wani, a descendant of the original property owners, petitioned the courts seeking restoration of the land, formal acquisition, or payment of compensation and rentals for the state’s prolonged use of the property.
Lower Court Dismissal and Legal Challenge
Wani appealed to the Supreme Court through advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki after a division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed his writ petition on June 28, 2022.
The high court had refused to grant relief, ruling that the petition was barred by an unexplained 68-year delay and that the underlying cause of action had expired. The high court noted that Wani, who was approximately 42 years old when filing the 2021 petition, had reached adulthood more than 20 years earlier without seeking prompt legal remedies.
Arguments Over Litigation Delay
Before the high court, Wani explained that his father was illiterate and unable to pursue legal channels earlier, adding that documents confirming his own representations to authorities over the previous two decades were destroyed during floods in 2014. The high court rejected these grounds due to the lack of supporting evidence.
The Union Territory administration opposed the petition as grossly delayed, arguing that the police department had maintained peaceful possession of the site since 1953 and that locating historical administrative records after such an extended period was difficult.
