UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (DEFENCE) vs ANWAR UL ISLAM SHAHEEN AND ANR.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 06.06.2026
Pronounced on:30.06.2026
Uploaded on: 01.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
RFA No.58/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...APPELLANTS
Through: - Ms. Masooda Jan, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Nazima, Advocate.
Vs.
ANWAR-UL-ISLAM & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Ibrahim Mehraj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The appellants/defendants, through the medium of
present appeal, have challenged judgment and decree dated
20.06.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Sopore (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”), whereby
the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed
in their favour.
2) It appears that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit
for declaration and injunction against the appellants/
defendants before the trial court. It was pleaded by the
plaintiffs that land measuring 23 kanals 14 marlas along
with two structures existing thereon was occupied by the

RFA No.58/2024 Page 1 of 18

Border Security Force (BSF) in the year 1995. Later on,
possession of the suit property was handed over by BSF to

CRPF. In March, 2011, 22 RR of Indian Army came in
occupation of the suit property. It has been submitted that
till the Army came in occupation of the suit property, the
rent in respect of the suit land and the structures existing
thereon was being paid to the plaintiff from time to time at
the rates fixed by District Development Commissioner, (Ex-
officio Chairman of the Rent Assessment Committee)
Baramulla. However, after possession of the suit property
was taken over by the Army, no rent in respect of the same
was being paid to the plaintiffs. It has been submitted that
when repeated requests were made by the plaintiffs to the
defendants, defendant No.3 vide his communication dated
19.10.2016, forwarded a cheque for an amount of
Rs.11,01,525/ to the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, for
disbursement of rentals to the plaintiffs and other land
owners. According to the plaintiffs, the rent was not properly
assessed as the latest schedules issued by the Government
for payment of the rentals were not taken into consideration,
inasmuch as the rates of rent issued by the Chairman, Rent
Assessment Committee vide order dated 23.01.2010 have
not been taken into consideration by the defendants while
calculating the rent.

RFA No.58/2024 Page 2 of 18

3) According to the plaintiffs, out of 23 kanals and 14
marlas of land owned by them, 7.2 kanals are under direct
occupation of the defendants whereas the adjacent
remaining land measuring 16 kanals and 12 marlas is
directly affected by the occupation of Army as the same has
been enclosed with concertina wire. Thus, according to the
plaintiffs, they are entitled to receive rentals for whole of the
land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas along with
structures existing thereon.
4) On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiffs
sought a decree for declaration that they are entitled to
receive rent in accordance with latest schedules for whole of
the land measuring 23 kanals 14 marlas situated at
Jalalabad Sopore which is under the occupation/affected by
the occupation of the defendants along with two
buildings/structures existing on the said land. The plaintiffs
have also sought a mandatory injunction directing the
defendants to pay rentals in respect of aforesaid land and
structures existing thereon on revised/latest schedules with
a further mandatory injunction directing the defendants to
vacate the suit property and hand over the same to the
plaintiffs.
5) The suit was contested by the appellants/defendants
by filing their written statement, wherein they have

RFA No.58/2024 Page 3 of 18

contended that only 06 kanals, 06 marlas and 02 sirsais
along with two structures existing thereon situated at Village
Jalalabad Sopore belonging to the plaintiffs is under the
occupation of the Army for which rentals have been fixed by
the District Rent Assessment Committee @Rs.2,25,384/ per
annum for the structures and Rs.5640/ per month for the
land which has been released in favour of the plaintiffs. It
has been submitted that there is no other land of the
plaintiffs existing on spot which has been occupied by the
defendants. Thus, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs
have no cause of action against them. It has been submitted
that the defendants are paying rent for the structures and
the land which is under their occupation according to the
rates prescribed by the Rent Assessment Committee headed
by Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla.
6) Defendant No.6, District Development Commissioner,
Baramulla, who was impleaded as proforma defendant, did
not contest the suit and he was set exparte.
7) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the contesting
parties and after recording their preliminary statements, the
learned trial court vide its order dated 12.05.2017 framed

the following issues:
1. Whether the Army 22 RR has taken over the
possession of the two structures and the land

RFA No.58/2024 Page 4 of 18

underneath and appurtenant thereto
measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas situated at
Jalal Abad Sopore owned by the plaintiffs from
the CRPF in March, 2011? (OPP)

2. Whether the defendants are not paying the rent
to the plaintiffs for the use and occupation of
two structures and the land measuring 23
kanals and 14 marlas situated at Jalal Abad
Sopore as per the latest schedules issued by
the Government from time to time? (OPP)
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to rent for the
two structures and land measuring 23 kanals
and 14 marlas in accordance with the latest
schedules issued by the Government? (OPP)
4. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the
rent for the land under the direct occupation of
the Army and the adjacent land affected by the
occupation of Army? (OPP)

5. Whether the defendants have paid the rent to
the plaintiffs for the use and occupation of land
measuring 6 kanals, 6 marlas and 2 sarsaie
with two structures standing thereupon as
fixed by the District Rent Assessment
Committee and as per the revised schedule
prescribed by the Government? (OPD)
6. Whether the plaintiffs are receiving the rentals
for the structures and the land, so the suit is hit
by doctrine of estopple? (OPD)
7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs for want of
cause of action is not maintainable, thus liable
to be dismissed? (OPD)

8. Whether the suit for want of valuation for the
purpose of jurisdiction and payment of court
fee is not maintainable? (OPD)
9. Relief.
8)
In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs, besides
examining themselves as witnesses, examined PWs Imtiyaz
Ahmad Lone, Record Keeper DC office, Baramulla, Mushtaq

RFA No.58/2024 Page 5 of 18

Ahmad Pandit, Mohammad Sultan Khan, Peerzada Latief
Ahmad, Patwari, and Ghulam Mohammad Lone, Executive
Officer, Municipal Council, Sopore, as witnesses in support
of their case. The defendants, on the other hand, examined
only one witness, namely, Shri Arindam Majhi, ADEO,

Baramulla.
9) The learned trial court, after analyzing the evidence on
record and after hearing the parties, while deciding issue No.1,
came to the conclusion that the defendants are in possession of
land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas along with two
th
structures belonging to the plaintiffs with effect from 17 March,
2011. While deciding issue Nos.2 and 3, the learned trial court
recorded a finding that the defendants have not paid rent for the
use and occupation of land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas
and two structures existing thereon as per the schedule to the
plaintiffs. It has also been held by the learned trial court that the
defendants are obliged to pay rent to the plaintiffs at the rates
mentioned in the latest schedules issued by the competent
authority. While deciding issue No.4, the learned trial court came
to the conclusion that the defendants have occupied whole of the
land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas along with two
structures. All other issues framed in the suit were also decided
in favour of the plaintiffs.
10) The learned trial court, after recording its findings on
various issues framed in the suit, passed a decree of declaration

RFA No.58/2024 Page 6 of 18

and mandatory injunction against the defendants holding that
the plaintiffs are entitled to receive rent for the land measuring
23 kanals and 14 marlas along with two structures situated at
Jalalabad Sopore and directed the defendants to pay rent to the
plaintiffs in accordance with the latest schedules issued by the
competent authority from the date of occupation i.e. from
17.03.2011 till their possession. It was further directed that the
defendants are obliged to pay rent to the plaintiffs @Rs.16,875/
per kanal per annum from 17.03.2011 and @Rs.27,843/ per
kanal per annum with effect from 16.02.2013. Regarding
structures, it was directed by the learned trial court that the
defendants shall pay rent @Rs.20,069/ from the date of
occupation i.e. 17.03.2011 till March, 2013 and @Rs.23,254/
from April, 2013 till the date of realization along with interest
@8%. It was further provided that an amount of Rs.10,23,469
already received by the plaintiffs shall be adjusted. A further
direction asking the defendants to continue to pay rent for the
suit property in favour of the plaintiffs at the rates mentioned in
the schedule, was also issued.
11) The appellants/defendants have challenged the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial
court on the grounds that the same is based upon incorrect
facts projected by the plaintiffs. It has been further
contended that the plaintiffs have not mentioned Khasra
numbers, area and ownership in the plaint and on this

RFA No.58/2024 Page 7 of 18

ground alone, the suit was liable to be dismissed. It has also
been contended that the learned trial court has failed to
appreciate that only 17 kanals and 17 marlas of land as
specified in Joint Inspection Report dated 28.06.2024 was
under the active occupation of the Army and not 23 kanals
and 14 marlas as was claimed by the plaintiffs. It has been
contended that Halqa Patwari in his statement has admitted
that the land under Khasra Nos.312 and 317 is not under
occupation of 22 RR but the same is an orchard. It has been
contended that the Army has got occupation of 17 kanals
and 17 marlas of land under Khasra Nos.321, 322, 323, 324,
325, 326, 327-min, 331-min and 338-min from BSF/CRPF
and no additional adjoining land has ever been occupied by
the Army. It has been further contended that last rental was
paid to the plaintiffs upto the period 31.03.2023 and,
therefore, the learned trial court could not have passed a
decree in favour of the plaintiffs even for the period for which
the defendants had already paid the rent. It has been
contended that the Army has never restricted the land
owners to use their land but this aspect of the matter has
not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court
12)
I have heard counsel for the parties and I have also
gone through the grounds of appeal, the impugned judgment
and the record of the trial court.

RFA No.58/2024 Page 8 of 18

13) Certain admitted facts, which emerge from the
pleadings of the parties, documents proved on record before
the trial court and the assertions made by the appellants in
the memo of appeal, are required to be noticed. It is an
admitted fact that the suit property before coming into
occupation of the appellants was under the occupation of
CRPF and prior to that under the occupation of BSF. As per
the document, EXPW-R/1, which has been placed on record
by the plaintiffs before the trial court and has been proved
by PW Imtiyaz Ahmad Lone, Record Keeper of DC Office,
Baramulla, land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas
situated in Estate Jalalabad Adipora, Sopore, was under the
occupation of 177 Bn. of CRPF and vide the aforesaid
document, rent has been assessed by the District
Development Commissioner, Baramulla. Another document,
which has been proved before the trial court, is EXPW-R/2.
The said document has also been proved by PW Imtiyaz
Ahmad Lone, Record Keeper. As per this document, the rent
has been assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla,
for the two structures in favour of the owners with effect from
04.12.1995 at the rates revised from time to time. Thus, it
has been proved from the evidence on record that the land
measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas along with two

RFA No.58/2024 Page 9 of 18

structures was occupied, previously by CRPF and prior to
that by the BSF.
14) It is an admitted case of the appellants/plaintiffs that
they came in occupation of the suit land and the structures
in March, 2011. The appellants/defendants contend that
only 17 kanals and 17 marlas of land has come in their
occupation along with two structures standing thereon and
that they have not occupied 23 kanals and 14 marlas of land,
as has been claimed by the plaintiffs. Before the trial court
as well as before this Court, the defendants have placed on
record copy of requisition order dated 06.10.2015, according
to which only 17 kanals and 17 marlas of land situated at
Adipora Jalalabad under Khasra Nos. 321 to 327, 331 and
338 has been requisitioned by the Army. They have also
placed on record copy of order dated 05.08.2023 issued by
the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, whereby the
requisition of 17 kanals and 17 marlas at Adipora Sopore
has been extended. Although these documents have not
been proved before the trial court, yet it has been the
consistent stand of the appellants/defendants that only 17
kanals and 17 marlas at Adipora Jalalabad, Sopore, has
been under the possession of Army since March, 2011 and

RFA No.58/2024 Page 10 of 18

the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendants are in
possession of 23 kanals and 14 marlas of land, is not correct.
15) In view of the above position, the only question that
falls for determination in this appeal is as to how much land
along with structures situated at Adipora Jalalabad, Sopore,
is in use and occupation of the defendants.
16) As already stated, the plaintiffs have proved before the
trial court that land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas
along with two structures existing thereon was initially
under the occupation of BSF and thereafter under the
occupation of CRPF. It has been proved that for the aforesaid
chunk of land, rent has been assessed in favour of the
plaintiffs in terms of documents EXPW-R/1 and EXPW-R/2.
From a perusal of document EXPW-R/1, it appears that
while 07 kanals and 02 marlas of land was in occupation of
CRPF, remaining 16 kanals and 12 marlas was affected due
to barbed wiring/fencing and laying of concertina wire for
security purposes. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that whole
of the land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas along with
structures existing thereon, came in occupation of the Army
after the CRPF vacated the same in the year 2011.
17)
The defendants, however, claim that only 17 kanals
and 17 marlas of land is under their occupation for which

RFA No.58/2024 Page 11 of 18

they have been paying rent to the land owners including the
plaintiffs. The defendants in this regard are relying upon the
notification regarding requisition of 17 kanals and 17 marlas
of land. Though the original notification has not been placed
on record, yet plaintiff No.1 has, during his cross-
examination, when confronted with the copy of notification
regarding requisition of 17 kanals and 17 marlas of land,
stated that he has no knowledge about the same. However,
he has not disputed authenticity of the said notification.
Therefore, it can safely be inferred that there is a deemed
admission on the part of the plaintiffs with regard to
authenticity of notification of requisition dated 16.10.2015,
which goes on to show that the defendants have
requisitioned only 17 kanals and 17 marlas of the land along
with structures existing thereon. Out of this requisitioned
land, it is the admitted case of the parties that only 06 kanals
and 06 marlas of land falling in Khasra No.326 belongs to
the plaintiffs.
18) The matter, however, does not rest here. It is the claim
of the plaintiffs that they have been unable to use the
balance land falling outside the requisitioned land, which is
measuring 17 kanals and 08 marlas, because due to security
reasons, the Army authorities do not allow them access to

RFA No.58/2024 Page 12 of 18

said portion of the land. In this regard, if we have a look at
the statements of the plaintiffs, they have stated that they
are entitled to rent for the house and of the land which is
directly under the occupation of the Army and also for the
land affected by the occupation as they have no access to the
said land and that they are not in a position to enter the said
land due to the fact that there is concertina wire around the
land and the security bunkers have been erected in the land.
They have also stated that they are not being allowed to enter
the land due to security reasons and whole of the land has
been rendered out of bounds for them. According to plaintiff
No.1, the Army has occupied the front portion of the land
leaving back portion of the land without any access for
ingress and egress. There is no cross-examination of the
plaintiffs on this aspect of the matter.
19) PW Peerzada Latief Ahmad, Patwari, has proved the
revenue extracts in respect of the suit land which as per the
documents, EXPW-1 and EXPW-2, belongs to the plaintiffs.
In the document, EXPW-2, there is a noting by the concerned
Patwari that land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas is in
occupation of the security forces. Patwari Peerzada Latief
Ahmad, in his statement, has deposed that on spot the
plaintiffs are owners of land measuring 23 kanals and 14

RFA No.58/2024 Page 13 of 18

marlas which is presently in occupation of the Army. He has
further stated that access to the said land is under the
occupation of the Army and that the Army authorities are
not allowing use of other portion of the land, as a result of
which whole of the land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas
is under the occupation of Army. In his cross-examination,
he has stated that land measuring 07 kanals is under direct
occupation of the Army whereas rest of the land is affected
by their occupation.
20) PW Mohammad Sultan has stated that the land
adjacent to the subject land has been enclosed by the Army
authorities by installing two gates and concertina wire.
Therefore, the adjacent land to the subject land is also
affected due to occupation of the Army. He has further stated
that there is a pathway passing through the land under the
occupation of Army but the same has been blocked by the
Army with wire and that the Army is not allowing any person
to pass through the said pathway. In his cross-examination,
the witness has repeated and reiterated the same assertions.
21) From the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clear that
even though the Army may have requisitioned only 06 kanals
and 06 marlas of the land belonging to the plaintiffs but
because the balance land measuring 17 kanals and 08

RFA No.58/2024 Page 14 of 18

marlas belonging to the plaintiffs is situated towards back
side of the requisitioned land measuring 17 kanals and 17
marlas directly occupied by the Army, it is not possible for
the plaintiffs to use that portion of the land which, though is
not the part of the requisitioned land. In fact, this position
gets strengthened from the Joint Inspection report dated
28.06.2024, which has been placed on record by the
appellants along with the memo of appeal. The said
document is not part of the trial court record and is not a
proved document. In the said report, it has been noted that
Halqa Patwari has informed that there is no approach to the
land under Khasra Nos.312 and 327 as per the revenue
record, meaning thereby that the land which is not part of
the requisitioned land and which according to the appellants
is not under their active use and occupation, has no
approach road.
22) The evidence on record, as discussed hereinbefore,
clearly shows that the Army authorities are not allowing
anyone to use the pathway for approaching this portion of
the land through the land which is under the occupation of
the Army. Thus, effectively the plaintiffs have been denied
the use and enjoyment of the balance land which is not part
of the requisitioned land. Thus, even if there is no formal
requisition of portion of the suit land beyond 06 kanals and

RFA No.58/2024 Page 15 of 18

06 marlas, which has, admittedly, been requisitioned by the
Army, the plaintiffs are certainly entitled to claim
compensation from the defendants for its use and
occupation.
23) From the evidence on record, it is proved that even
though the Army authorities have requisitioned only a
specified portion of the suit land yet because of the security
restrictions, the plaintiffs have effectively been denied access
to the remaining portion of the suit land. Thus, plaintiffs may
not strictly be entitled to rent for the non-requisitioned area
but they would certainly be entitled to compensation for loss
of use and enjoyment of that portion of the area. The
appellants/defendants cannot avoid liability to pay
compensation for the un-requisitioned land once it is shown
that in reality, the plaintiffs’ access and enjoyment of the
balance un-requisitioned portion of the suit land was
completely excluded by the actions of the Army. The
plaintiffs having been deprived of possession and enjoyment
of the portion of the non-requisitioned suit land, they are
entitled to compensation for that balance area of the land.
24) While it has been established on record that only 06
kanals and 06 marlas of the suit land along with structures
existing thereon belonging to the plaintiffs has been
requisitioned by the appellants and that they are obliged to

RFA No.58/2024 Page 16 of 18

pay rent in respect of that portion of the property to the
plaintiffs at the rates notified by the Rent Assessment
Committee from time to time, it has also been established
that the appellants have denied access to the plaintiffs to the
non-requisitioned portion of the suit land, thereby depriving
them from its enjoyment. Thus, the appellants are also
obliged to pay compensation for the portion of the suit land
measuring 17 kanals and 08 marlas which falls outside the
requisitioned land. This amount of compensation has to be
assessed on the basis of the rent that is being paid by the
Army to the plaintiffs for the portion of the suit land which
has been duly requisitioned by them. The learned trial court,
while directing the defendants to pay rent to the plaintiffs for
whole of the land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas, may
not have drawn a distinction between the portion of the land
which has been actually requisitioned by the Army and the
portion of the land which has become unusable by the
plaintiffs due to security restrictions imposed by the Army
but, nonetheless, the ultimate conclusion drawn by the
learned trial court, whereby the defendants have been asked
to pay rent to the plaintiffs for whole of the suit land at the
rates specified in the schedules issued by the Rent
Assessment Committee, cannot be interfered with.

RFA No.58/2024 Page 17 of 18

25) Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal filed by the
appellants, it is clarified that for the requisitioned portion of
the suit land measuring 06 kanals and 06 marlas, the
appellants/defendants shall pay rent to the plaintiffs at the
rates specified by the Rent Assessment Committee from time
to time and for balance portion of the suit land measuring
17 kanals and 08 marlas, they shall pay compensation for
its use and occupation to the plaintiffs at the same rates.
The judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court shall
stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
26) The trial court record along with a copy of this
judgment be sent back.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
30.06.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the judgment is reportable: YES/NO

RFA No.58/2024 Page 18 of 18