Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
A/P Madina Bagh vs 7. Major 52 Rr Amargarh on 27 July, 2026
Sr. No. 02
2026:JKLHC-SGR:243-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
LPA No. 157/2026 in Date of pronouncement: 27.07.2026
WP (C) No. 1926/2019 Date of uploading:
1. Mohammad Sidiq Banday, Age: 72 years
S/o Abdul Khaliq Banday
R/o New Light Colony, Sopore
A/p Madina Bagh, Channapora, Srinagar .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Nisar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate
v/s
1. Union of India through Secretary to
Ministry of Defense, New Delhi.
2. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir,
Srinagar.
3. Commandant, 52 RR C/O 56 APO.
4. HQ 10, Sector RR, Hyderbagh, Pattan,
Baramulla.
5. Defense Estates Officer, Baramulla.
6. Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla.
7. Major 52 RR Amargarh, Sopore. .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Advocate vice
Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI
Mr. Faizan Majeed Ganaie, CGSC for R-5
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) (Through virtual mode)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
1. Impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal, filed by the appellant, is an
order and judgment dated 22.05.2026 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in case titled “Mohammad
Sidiq Banday vs. UOI and Others“, whereby the Writ Court has
allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant and passed the
following directions.
LPA No. 157/2026 in
WP (C) No. 1926/2019
2
2026:JKLHC-SGR:243-DB
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed with the following directions: –
(i) The respondents shall examine the matter and take a
decision within a period of six weeks from the date a copy
of this judgment is made available to them, as to whether
the petitioner’s land in question, presently under the
occupation of 52 Rashtriya Rifles Bn., is required for
public purpose/security purpose.
(ii) In the event the respondents require the aforesaid land
for continued use and occupation, they shall initiate and
complete proceedings for requisition of the land under
the relevant law, governing the subject and pay rental
compensation to the petitioner, in accordance with law,
within a period of six weeks from the date of this
judgment/order.
(iii) In case the respondents do not require the land any
further, they shall vacate the same and restore peaceful
possession thereof to the petitioner, forthwith.
(iv) Till such decision is taken, the respondents shall also
consider release/payment of entire rental compensation
including its arrears for the entire period of holding
petitioner’s land by them, in period of holding
petitioner’s land by them, in accordance with rules and
norms, applicable to such requisitioned property.
2. The impugned order is challenged by the appellant, primarily, on the
ground that the Writ Court has not appreciated that the reliefs
granted are not the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition by the
appellant. He would argue that since his landed property was found
to be under the unauthorized occupation of the respondents and,
therefore, the Writ Court ought to have either directed the vacation of
the possession or in the alternative for initiating proceedings for
acquisition under land acquisition law in force.
LPA No. 157/2026 in
WP (C) No. 1926/2019
3
2026:JKLHC-SGR:243-DB
3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
material on record, it is necessary to first set out the prayer clause of
the writ petition hereinbelow: –
a. Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the
possession of land measuring 1 Kanal and 4 ½ marlas
land situated at New Light Colony Hemlina Amargad
Sopore to the petitioner forthwith.
b. Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the
damages/compensation of Rs. 50.00 Lacs to the
petitioner on account of illegal possession. The
respondents more particularly respondent no. 3 be
further directed to pay the prevailing commercial
market rent to the petitioner for illegal occupation, till
its vacation by 52 RR.
c. Any other writ, order or direction through not
specifically prayed be issued in favour of the petitioner
and against the respondents.
4. From the pleadings of the appellant, it clearly transpires that the
grievance as is projected by the appellant before the Writ Court was
to the extent that his land measuring 1 kanal 4 ½ marlas situated in
New Light Colony Hemlina Amargad Sopore [“the subject land”] is
in illegal occupation of the respondents and, therefore, the
respondents are under an obligation either to formally acquire it and
pay compensation or vacate it.
5. The reply affidavit filed by the respondents discloses their stand, to
the effect that the subject land was a part of an abandoned weaning
factory which was spread over more than 10 kanals. Keeping in view
the security scenario in and around Sopore, at the relevant point of
time, the same was occupied to secure the population of the town and
the neighboring areas by putting the aforesaid property to use and to
LPA No. 157/2026 in
WP (C) No. 1926/2019
4
2026:JKLHC-SGR:243-DB
prevent the use of such abandoned dilapidated factory by the
terrorists.
6. Be that as it may, the respondents have not denied having occupied
the property. They, however, claim that they have got the approval of
the acquisition from the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla in terms
of laters’ letter dated 30.11.2018. It is, thus, evident that in the
aforesaid background, the Writ Court dealt with the controversy and
issued the aforesaid directions.
7. While we do not find any fault in the manner in which the Writ Court
has disposed of the writ petition, but we wish to introduce more
clarity so that the dispute between the parties is settled once for all,
leaving no scope for further litigation.
8. In that view of the matter, we propose to dispose of this appeal by
providing as under: –
a) The respondents, as directed by the Writ Court, shall
take a decision within a period of two months from
today as to whether they still need to occupy the land
for public purpose/security purpose.
b) If they take a decision with regard to continuation of
the occupation of the subject property, they shall
initiate and complete the requisition proceedings under
the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property
Act, 1952 within the statutory period and disburse the
entire arrears of rental, payable to the appellant, from
the date of such requisition.
LPA No. 157/2026 in
WP (C) No. 1926/2019
5
2026:JKLHC-SGR:243-DB
c) If the decision of the respondents is that the subject
land is required for public purpose and the requirement
is perennial in nature, they shall initiate steps for
formally acquiring the same under the provisions of
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
d) Should they decide not to occupy the property any
more, they shall immediately restore the possession of
the appellant and also disburse him all the arrears of
rental from the date it was taken possession of by the
respondents.
e) The above directions may not be complied with if the
acquisition proceedings are already complete and the
entire rental arrears of rental compensation have been
disbursed to the appellant and that the land is not
permanently required for public purpose.
9. Disposed of.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Chief Justice (A)
JAMMU
27.07.2026
Manik
Whether this order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether this order is reportable: Yes/No
