Bashir Ahmed Vs State Th.Home Dept.and Ors.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking a direction upon the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 1,08,765/-, which according to him is due towards arrears of rent for use and occupation of his house/shop located at bus stand Baina, Doda by security forces w.e.f. May 1994 to May 1998.

¶14

Case of the petitioner is that his house/shop located at Bus Stand, Baina in District Doda, has remained under the occupation of security forces w.e.f May 1994 to May 1998, but he has not been paid any rent for the use and occupation of the said premises by the security forces. It has been submitted that many representations were made by the petitioner with the concerned authorities but no payment has made to the petitioner.

¶15

OWP No. 1454/2010

¶16

It has been submitted that the petitioner had filed a writ petition OWP840/2002 before this Court for redressal of his grievance. On 10.09.2022, the said writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to respondent Nos. 5 and 7 therein viz. the Revenue Authorites of Govt. of J&K to assess the amount of rent/compensation for use and occupation of the premises in question and to pass appropriate orders. It was further directed that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to the said writ petition viz. the Union of India and its subordinate authorities shall take steps thereafter.

¶17

It has been submitted that pursuant to aforesaid order, Govt. Order No. Home-244(P) of 2005 dated 30.06.2005 was issued by respondent No. 1,whereby rent @ of Rs.2190/-per month has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. May 1994 to Feb 1997. A copy of the said order has been placed on record. It has been submitted that only an amount of Rs.2925/-towards the arrears of the rent has been paid to the petitioner and balance amount of Rs.1,08,765/-has not been paid to him so far.

¶18

Respondent No. 6, in its reply to the writ petition, has submitted that Superintending Engineer, PWD(R&B) circle, Doda vide his letter dated 22.06.2002 had submitted the details of rent assessment case and the same was sent to the office of Deputy Commissioner, who is the Chairman of District Rent Assessment Committee. In the said report it was stated that the premises of the

¶19

OWP No. 1454/2010

¶20

petitioner has remained in occupation of security forces and the said fact was duly verified and authenticated by Senior Superindent of Police Doda. It was also stated that the premises was occupied by 68-BN-B.S.Fw.e.f May 1994 to September 1994, 14-BN-B.S.Ffrom October 1994 to June 1995, 19 BN B.S.F from July 1995 to February 1997 and by 17 RR from March 1997 to May 1998. The rent assessment made by R&B Department per month was shown as Rs.2190/-.It has been submitted that on 27.11.2002, the Rent Assessment Committee which is headed by the Deputy Commissioner, approved 40 rent cases including the case of the petitioner.

¶21

It has been further submitted that in pursuance of the decision taken by the Rent Assessment Committee, in its meeting held on 27.11.2002 sanction was accorded to the fixation of rent in respect of the buildingsoccupied by the security forces of the house owners including the house of the petitioner from May 1994 to Feb 1997.

¶22

Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 in their reply to the writ petition have submitted that as per the operating procedure for deployment of Central Para Military Forces in State of J&K, the State Government has to confirm the availability of suitable accommodation water, electricity, transport communication including telephone and logistics infrastructure support, while requisitioning the force deployed in the State to help the State Police to tackle the law and order problem in J&K State. It has been submitted that the rent is

¶23

OWP No. 1454/2010

¶24

to be paid by the State of J&K not by the said

¶25

respondents.Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 have submitted that there is no record available with the said respondents with regard to the occupation of the property of the petitioner. However, it has been submitted the as per the deployment register, 14 BN B.S.F was deployed in Gandoh under I.S. Duty Sector Doda from 26^th June 1994 to 4^th Oct 1995. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has not enclosed any documentary evidence about the occupation of his house by respondent Nos. 3 and 5.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

¶27

The issue, which is required to be determined in this writ petition, is as to whether, the property of the petitioner was occupied by the security forces and, if so, for what period. The second issue which is required to be determined, is as to what is the rate of rent which is payable to the petitioner for use and occupation of his premises and which of the respondents has to pay the said rent.

¶28

So far as, respondent Nos. 3 and 5 are concerned, they have not specifically admitted having occupied the property of the petitioner. They have pleaded that there is no record available with them to showthat they have ever occupied the premises of the petitioner. However, respondent Nos. 6 Deputy Commissioner, Doda in his

¶29

OWP No. 1454/2010

¶30

reply has clearly stated that the premises of petitioner was occupied by different battalions of B.S.F and RR with effect from May 1994 to May 1998. Thus, there is a categoric admission on the part of the authorities of the State of J&K that premises of the petitioner was occupied by the security forces during the aforesaid period. Merely because respondent Nos. 3 to 5 do not have record available to confirm this fact does not mean that the petitioner’s premises was not occupied by the respondents. In fact, in the earlier round of litigation this Court had directed the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to assess the rent and the Union of India alongwith the relevant battalions of the security forces were directed to take necessary steps thereafter. In these circumstances, the denial of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 with regard to occupation of the premises by security forces during the aforesaid period is of no consequence.

¶31

That takes us to the question at what rate the use and occupation charges are payable by the respondents.In this regard respondent-Deputy Commissioner, who is the head of the Rent Assessment Committee, has already assessed the rent of the premises of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.2190/-per month. In fact, sanction for payment of rent at the aforesaid rate has already been accorded in favour of the petitioner by Home Department of the J&K Government vide order dated 30.06.2005(Supra) pursuant whereto an amount of Rs.2925/- has already been released in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 2190/- per month.

¶32

OWP No. 1454/2010

¶33

In normal course of things it is only after taking resort to J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition Act 1968, that the respondents could have occupied the premises of the petitioner whereafter assessment of rent in accordance with the provisions of the said Act would have followed or in the alternative rent could have been fixed on the basis of private negotitation but having regard to the security situationthat was prevailing in District Doda, at the relevant time there might have been compelling reasons for the respondents to take forcible possession of premises of the petitioner so as to accommodate the security forces. But that does not mean that petitioner’s right to property can be defeated by not paying him compensation for the use and occupation of the premises.

¶34

In the instant case, the petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post for recovery of his lawful dues. He had to knock the portals of this Court in the year 2002 by filing a writ petition and even aferhaving obtained an order against the respondents for assessement and payment of rent, his grievance has remained unaddressed which has compelled him to go for a second round of litigation. After the assessment of rent was undertaken by the Rent Assessment Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner and order of sanction was issued by the State Government,there was no reason for the respondents to withhold the payment of rent to the petitioner.Keeping in view, the mandate of order dated 10.09.2002 passed in OWP No.840/2002, the respondents were obliged to release the rent in favour of the petitioner for use and occupatioinof

¶35

OWP No. 1454/2010

¶36

his premises for the period for which the same had remained under occupation of the security forces. The respondents by not releasing the rent in favour of the petitioner, are in breach of order dated 10.09.2002 passed in OWP No.890/2002.

¶37

In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release rent @Rs.2190 per month in favor of the petitioner with effect from May 1994 to May 1998, after deducting the amount already released in his favour. The outstanding amount of rent shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date it has become due till it is actually paid to the petitioner. In this regard, respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Ramban, shall convey the details of outstanding amount of rent to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 within one month from today. The amount of outstanding rent along with interest shall thereafter be deposited by respondents No.2 to 5 with respondent No.6 within two months, for its release in favour of the petitioner.

¶38

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE

¶39

JAMMU 14.10.2025 Mahavir

Bashir Ahmed v. State Th.Home Dept.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bashir Ahmed v. State Th.Home Dept.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazir Hussain and Another Vs U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

Sham Lal Vs Rahul Yadav Commissioner Jmc Jammu

Harvinder Kour Vs Devansh Yadav Commissioner and Another

Rama Steel Tubes Ltd. Th. Alok Aggarwal Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary , Jal Shakti Department, Jammu and Another

Chur Singh and Anr. Vs State Th.Revenue Deptt.and Ors.

Gandhrev Singh Vs Ut of J and K Th Deputy Commissioner, Kathua and Another