Security forces are liable to pay occupation compensation for non-requisitioned land rendered inaccessible due to security restrictions.

The respondents (plaintiffs) are owners of land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas with two structures in Jalalabad Sopore

The property was occupied by the BSF in 1995, later by the CRPF, and finally by the Indian Army (22 RR) in March 2011

While earlier agencies paid rent at rates fixed by the Rent Assessment Committee (RAC), the Army allegedly failed to pay proper rentals upon taking possession

The plaintiffs claimed the Army occupied 7.2 kanals directly and fenced off the remaining 16 kanals 12 marlas, rendering it inaccessible

The Appellants (defendants) contended they only occupied 17 kanals 17 marlas (of which 6 kanals 6 marlas belonged to plaintiffs) and were only liable for that portion

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs for the entire 23 kanals 14 marlas

1. Whether the defendants are in possession/occupation of the entire land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas or only the requisitioned portion

2. Whether the defendants are liable to pay rent or compensation for land that is not formally requisitioned but rendered unusable due to security restrictions

The Court applied the principles of civil liability regarding "use and occupation" of property and the regulatory framework governing Rent Assessment Committees

If a party’s actions (such as security fencing and blocking pathways) effectively exclude the owner’s access and enjoyment of a property, the owner is entitled to compensation for loss of use, even in the absence of a formal requisition order under the Requisition of Immovable Property Act

The Court observed that while the Army formally requisitioned 17 kanals 17 marlas (including 6 kanals 6 marlas of the plaintiffs' land), revenue records and witness testimonies established that the total area of 23 kanals 14 marlas had been under security force occupation since 1995

PWs testified that the Army installed concertina wires and gates, blocking the only pathway to the non-requisitioned portion of the land

The Court noted that even the defendants' own Joint Inspection Report hinted at a lack of approach roads for the remaining Khasra numbers

The Court reasoned that since the plaintiffs were physically and effectively denied access to the balance 17 kanals 08 marlas due to the Army’s security perimeter, the defendants could not avoid liability

It bridged the gap between "formal rent" for requisitioned land and "compensation" for effectively occupied land to uphold the trial court’s ultimate valuation

The Court directed that for the 06 kanals 06 marlas formally requisitioned, the Appellants shall pay "rent" at RAC rates, and for the balance 17 kanals 08 marlas, they shall pay "compensation for use and occupation" at the same RAC rates