No Land Without Law: Jammu Kashmir High Court Orders Compensation or Return of Katra Land Held by Authorities for Decades | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has directed authorities to either acquire privately owned land in Katra and pay compensation or return it to the owners, ruling that the State cannot retain property without legal sanction, even if it has been in long possession.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi allowed a writ petition filed by Pushpa Devi and others, who had sought possession of their land measuring over five kanals in Katra or, alternatively, its acquisition under law with due compensation.

The petitioners argued that the land, inherited from their predecessors, had been temporarily permitted for use as a parking space by local authorities decades ago, with an assurance that it would be formally acquired if required permanently. However, despite continuous use by the Municipal Committee, no acquisition proceedings were initiated and no compensation was paid.

The respondents, including the Union Territory administration and the Municipal Committee, Katra, opposed the petition primarily on the grounds of delay and long possession, claiming uninterrupted use of the land since the late 1960s. They also asserted that parts of the land were being used for public purposes, including a road, auto stand and facilities for pilgrims.

Rejecting these arguments, the court held that ownership of the petitioners over the land was undisputed and that mere long possession by the State could not defeat property rights. It emphasized that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains protected under Article 300A of the Constitution and cannot be taken away without due process of law.

The court also dismissed the State’s plea of adverse possession, citing settled law that a welfare State cannot claim ownership of private land by occupying it for a prolonged period. It observed that allowing such a plea would undermine constitutional protections and erode public trust.

On the issue of delay, the court ruled that the doctrine of laches is not absolute and cannot be invoked where there is a continuing cause of action, particularly in cases involving deprivation of property without legal authority.

Holding that the petitioners had been unlawfully deprived of their land, the court directed the authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings immediately and complete the process, including payment of compensation, within six months. It added that if the land is no longer required, possession must be restored to the petitioners.

The ruling reinforces judicial scrutiny over prolonged State occupation of private land without formal acquisition, particularly in cases where land was initially taken for temporary public use.