Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 326 (JK)

Kashmir Furnishing Agency v. State Of J&K

2023-08-02

SANJAY DHAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1) Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he was running the business of sale of furnishing and allied items in Shop No.5 owned by Srinagar Development Authority having the dimensions of 10x15 sft. situated at Nalamar Road, near Nawakadal Chowk, Srinagar, under the name and style of M/S Kashmir Furnishing Agency. According to the petitioner, he was earning an income of Rs.20,000/ per month from the said shop which was duly registered with the Sales Tax Department. It has been submitted that the shop of the petitioner was occupied by the Security Forces in the month of January, 1990, as a result of which he was unable to carry on any business activity from his shop. Till the year 2002, the shop is stated to have remained under the occupation of the Security Forces and in March, 2003, the petitioner took over possession of the said shop. It is case of the petitioner that his shop was occupied by different security agencies like CRPF, BSF etc. from time to time. 2) The petitioner has placed on record the communication issued by SHO, P/S Safakadal Srinagar, according to which his shop has remained under occupation of Security Forces from the year 1990 to June, 2002. It is further case of the petitioner that when his shop was occupied by the Security Forces, stocks worth Rs.6,11,878.47/ were lying therein. The petitioner claims that because of occupation of his shop by the Security Forces, he could not conduct any business from the said shop and that he was not paid any compensation by the respondents. This compelled him to file a writ petition bearing OWP No.803/2006. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of this Court in terms of order dated 25.02.2008, whereby the respondent State and its functionaries were directed to assess the petitioner’s claim in accordance with Government Order No.Home-224 (P) of 1999 dated 21.05.1999. 3) Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the District Assessment Rent Committee sanctioned payment of rent in respect of the shop of the petitioner @Rs.150/ per month from 1990 to April, 1991, @Rs.250/ per month with effect from April, 1991 to June, 1998 and @Rs.400/ per month with effect from June 1998 onwards. This was done by the Government in terms of order No.2022 of 2009 dated 09.06.2009. This was done by the Government in terms of order No.2022 of 2009 dated 09.06.2009. 4) The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the respondents have not compensated him for the losses which he suffered to his business on account of closure of his shop and vide order dated 9th June, 2009, only rental charges have been sanctioned in respect of his shop occupied by the Security Forces. It has been contended that in a similarly circumstanced, case of Shri Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Wani, the respondents have paid compensation to the said person in respect of the losses suffered by him. On this ground, it is urged that the petitioner has been invidiously discriminated by the action of respondents. It has been further contended that Government Order dated 21.05.1999, which provide for assessment and payment of loss of business to the persons whose properties were occupied by the Security Forces, has not been pressed into service by the respondents though as per the judgment of this Court passed on 25.02.2008, a specific direction was issued to the respondents to assess the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the contents of the aforesaid Government Order. 5) On the basis of aforesaid contentions, the petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondents to approve his claim on the same analogy as has been adopted in the case of Shri Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Wani and to assess and pay the amount of loss suffered by the petitioner to his business. The petitioner has also challenged Government Order No.188 dated 13.05.2013, whereby, pursuant to the directions of this Court passed on 25.02.2008 in the earlier writ petition, his claim has been rejected. 6) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, it has been submitted that in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner had claimed compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of the bunker that was erected by the Security Forces in front of his shop, which, according to the petitioner, had resulted in closure of his business that was being run by him from the shop. It has been further submitted that Government Order dated 21.05.1999 does not envisage the payment of damages or compensation in cases where the access to the shop has been blocked due to erection of bunker by the Security Forces. It has been further submitted that Government Order dated 21.05.1999 does not envisage the payment of damages or compensation in cases where the access to the shop has been blocked due to erection of bunker by the Security Forces. It has been further submitted that Government Order dated 21.05.1999 has been superseded by Government Order No.Home-514 of 1999 dated 24.11.1999 and the said order does not envisage payment of compensation on account of business losses. On this ground, the respondents have claimed that the petitioner has no case against them. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8) The petitioner claims that he was running the business of furnishing and allied items from his shop situated at Nalamar Road Nawakadal, Srinagar. He has further submitted that the said shop was occupied by the Security Forces from the year 1990 to June, 2002 and during this period he could not conduct his business from the said shop which resulted in losses to him. The respondents claim that a bunker was erected in front of shop of the petitioner which resulted in closure of his shop. However, the documents placed on record by the petitioner in the shape of certificates issued by various authorities of Security Forces who had occupied the shop as also the certificate issued by the police clearly show that it was not a case of erection of bunker in front of shop of the petitioner, but it was a case where the petitioner’s shop was occupied by the Security Forces. In fact, the respondents vide their order dated 09.06.2009 have assessed occupational charges of the shop wherefrom the petitioner was running his business, which clearly shows that the shop of the petitioner was under the occupation of Security Forces. 9) As already noted, vide order dated 25.02.2008 passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the respondents were directed to assess the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the contents of order No.Home-224(P) of 1999 dated 21.05.1999. 9) As already noted, vide order dated 25.02.2008 passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the respondents were directed to assess the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the contents of order No.Home-224(P) of 1999 dated 21.05.1999. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant clauses of the said order: a) Rents for private properties - house, commercial -buildings, industrial sheds and other immovable properties under occupation of security forces on Counter Insurgency duty in J&K, shall be paid by the Home Department on the basis of rents accessed by the Rent Assessment Committee (for houses, industrial sheds and other immovable structures) and by the Tourism Department (Hotels). Reimbursement for the rentals paid shall be sought from the Government of India so that the expenditure is not a burden on the State exchequer. b) For loss of business of commercial and industrial unit, whether or not the units were occupied by the Security Forces with the consent of the owners, the demands for relief / compensation for loss of business shall be processed by the I&C Department and funds required for such purposes, as per Government decision which may be taken in each individual case, shall be projected in the plan budget of the I&C Department. c) Compensation for any abnormal damage or loss to the occupied properties other than the normal wear and tear caused by the tenant security force units, if any, will be worked out by the respective District Development Commissioners, in consultation with District Supdts. of Police. Claims for damage for such losses shall be preferred to the concerned security force units for making good the damage/loss caused by the, as per assessment of the District Development Commissioners. 10) From a perusal of the aforesaid clauses, it is clear that a provision for assessment of loss of business of commercial units occupied by the Security Forces was made and the demands in this regard had to be projected to I&C Department and the said Department had to process such cases for payment of compensation. 10) From a perusal of the aforesaid clauses, it is clear that a provision for assessment of loss of business of commercial units occupied by the Security Forces was made and the demands in this regard had to be projected to I&C Department and the said Department had to process such cases for payment of compensation. In the light of specific direction of the Court, it was incumbent upon the respondents to assess the loss to the business of the petitioner on account of occupation of his shop by the Security Forces and thereafter process his case for payment of compensation, particularly when it is the counsel for the respondents who had offered to the Court to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of Government order dated 21.05.1999. Instead of doing so, the respondents have taken shield behind Government Order dated 24.11.1999 and according to them, the said order does not envisage payment of damages or compensation for the loss of business. It is on this ground that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner in terms of impugned order dated 13.05.2013. 11) The stand taken by the respondents by relying upon Government Order dated 24.11.1999 is not tenable for the reason that the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner of his property without paying any compensation to him. Once the respondents had undertaken to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of order dated 21.05.1999, it was not open to them to take shelter under any other order/instruction of the Government. Even in the absence of guidelines and orders on the subject from the Government, the right to property of a person cannot be taken away except in due course of law. 12) Prior to abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, the right to property was a fundamental right in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. Even after application of all the provisions of the Constitution of India to this part of the Country, in view of the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution, a person cannot be deprived of his property without the authority of law. Derivation of property of a person can only be in accordance with law when it is for public welfare and is just, fair and reasonable. It would be reasonable only if the person concerned is awarded just compensation. Derivation of property of a person can only be in accordance with law when it is for public welfare and is just, fair and reasonable. It would be reasonable only if the person concerned is awarded just compensation. The Supreme Court has, in the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 569 , held that the right to own property is a human right and the same cannot be denied. Thus, unless adequate compensation is given to a person whose property is occupied, either on permanent basis or for a particular period, he cannot be denied his right to property. 13) Therefore, whether or not there are any Government instructions on the subject, it was not open to the respondents to occupy the shop of the petitioner thereby denying him the right to run business from the said shop without adequately compensating him. In normal course, it was incumbent upon the respondents to take resort to the provisions contained in the Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act for the purpose of taking over possession of the shop of the petitioner and thereafter pay him the compensation in accordance with the provisions and the procedure provided under the said Act. In the instant case, the respondents have not adopted the said course but instead they have forcibly occupied the shop of the petitioner and on the top of it, they are not even willing to pay compensation for the losses which the petitioner suffered because he could not run business from his said shop. The denial of claim of the petitioner made by the respondents vide impugned order dated 13.05.2013 is, therefore, not sustainable in law. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 is set aside. The respondents are directed to assess the losses that were suffered by the petitioner because of occupation of his shop by the Security Forces. After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondents shall pay the amount of assessed compensation to the petitioner. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 is set aside. The respondents are directed to assess the losses that were suffered by the petitioner because of occupation of his shop by the Security Forces. After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondents shall pay the amount of assessed compensation to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date a copy of this judgment is provided by the petitioner to them and in case within the aforesaid period, the amount is not paid to the petitioner, the assessed compensation shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of this judgment.