Haji Abdul Qayoom Khan vs. State Of Jk And Ors (Home / Revenue)

Facts

The petitioner, Haji Abdul Qayoom Khan, filed a writ petition in 2017 seeking compensation for damages to his property in Srinagar. His residential house was occupied by security forces (BSF 60 BN) from 2000. In 2008, during the Amarnath Land Row period, the house was set ablaze by an unruly mob, allegedly because security forces were stationed there, leading to FIR No. 189/2008. The petitioner had approached the J&K State Human Rights Commission, which, by an order dated July 24, 2012, recommended that the petitioner was entitled to compensation from the State Government and directed the State to assess and pay for the damages. As no assessment or payment was made, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the State Government should take a pragmatic view and inquire into the petitioner's claim, considering relevant facts, to grant compensation for the loss caused to his property. The Court noted that the Human Rights Commission's proceedings recorded that the property was targeted by an unruly mob due to its occupation by security forces, and this report was not rebutted. The Court directed the State Government, through the Home Secretary, to consider the petitioner's claim for compensation on its merits within twelve weeks. The petitioner was also to be given an opportunity to present his case to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the State Government is bound to pay compensation to the petitioner for damages to his property, as recommended by the J&K State Human Rights Commission, considering the property was occupied by security forces and subsequently damaged by an unruly mob. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the damages claimed were not disputed by the State Human Rights Commission and therefore, the State Government is obligated to pay compensation without demur, relying on the Commission's proceedings. Revenue/State's Contention: The State Government contended that any rent due to the petitioner for the use and occupation of the property by security forces had already been paid. Regarding compensation, they stated that the recommendations of the State Human Rights Commission would be considered on their merits, and the alleged damages would be verified. If found justified, the State Government would decide on compensation after the property was vacated. The Central Government, through the ASGI, stated that issues of rent and compensation for use and occupation fall within the State Government's domain and offered cooperation.