Holding

Retirees shall continue to possess the government accommodations in their possession until the State is able to rehabilitate them and provide appropriate accommodation.

Summary

The appellants, Kashmiri Pandit retirees who lost their homes in the valley due to militancy, were allowed to retain government‑provided accommodation in Jammu even after retirement for security reasons. Other government employees filed writ petitions seeking those houses, leading the High Court to order eviction of the retirees. The Supreme Court, after a long pendency, examined the State's undertaking to frame a rehabilitation scheme for Kashmiri migrants and the resources allocated under the Return and Rehabilitation Package. The Court found that the State had formulated the scheme, secured funding, and was proceeding with implementation. Consequently, the Court held that until the State can fully rehabilitate the retirees and provide suitable accommodation, they may continue to occupy the houses they presently possess. The appeal was therefore disposed of without ordering eviction.

Issues considered

Whether retired government servants who are Kashmiri migrants can be evicted from government accommodation pending the State's rehabilitation scheme.
Whether the State's undertaking and the formulated Return and Rehabilitation Package constitute sufficient basis to allow continued possession of the accommodation.

Subjects

rehabilitationgovernment accommodationevictionKashmiri migrantsreturn and rehabilitation packagesecurityretired government servantsstate policy

Judgment

•

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 452

A J.L. KOUL & ORS. ho ..
v.
STATE OF J & K & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3809 of 2005)

OCTOBER 27, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
,.
Rehabilitation:

Kashmiri migrants - State Government servants allowed
"' •
c to continue occupying government accommodations in
Jammu even after their retirement - Their own houses in the
valley having been destroyed by militants - Serving
government employees waiting for allotment of government
D
accommodation, filing writ petition - High Court directing l- .
eviction of retired government servants from government
accommodations - HELD: In view of the rehabilitation
scheme framed by the State authorities and the undertaking
given by the State Government, till the State is able to
rehabilitate and provide appropriate accommodation, the
E retireesloustees concerned shall continue to possess the
accommodations in their possession as on date.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. ..
.

3809 of 2005.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.3.1997 of the High
Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in LPA No. (OWP) No.
50 of 1997.

Purnima Bhat for the Appellants.
G
Anis Suhrawardy for the Respondents. ~
•
The following Order of the Court was delivered

452
H
J.L. KOUL & ORS. v. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 453

ORDER A
~""
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants
; against the judgment and order dated 14.3.1997 passed by the
Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court by which
Letters Patent Appeal (OWP) No.SO of 1997 against the B
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated
24.1.1997 passed in OWP Nos.139, 339 and 621of1995 has
been dismissed .
....
~ 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are
that the appellants are Kashmiri Pandits and had been in c
employment of the State Government. They had been allotted
residential accommodation at Jammu in 1989-90 being the
Government servants.

3. The houses of the appellants were either destroyed or
.. -"
burnt down by the militants in the valley. The appellants were
D
permitted to retain their respective accommodation at Jammu
,. . for safety reasons though they had retired and had no right to
continue in possession of their respective accommodation and
the accommodation could have been allotted to other
E
government employees who were waiting in the queue.
However, such a step was considered necessary by the State
Government as the atmosphere was not congenial for the
.. appellants to move in the valley. More so, they had lost their
respective houses.
F
4. The Government employees, who were waiting for
allotment of residential accommodation but could not get the
...( same because the appellants were occupying the government
(
houses, filed writ petition nos.139, 339 and 621 of 1995 before
the High Court complaining that they were not provided with the G
government accommodation by the State Government. None
J of the appellants herein had been impleaded in either of those
writ petitions nor any pleadings had been taken against them .
. The claim of the writ petitioners had been that the Government
was duty-bound to provide for residential accommodation which H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A was not being done. Therefore, the High Court was requested
to issue appropriate direction for prov.iding them the l,j .4
government accommodation. The learned Single Judge vide
judgment and order dated 24. 1.1997 allowed the writ petition
and issued the following directions:-
B
"1. That all those persons who have ceased to be
Government servants, for any reasons, shall be evicted
from the houses allotted to them as Government servants
immediately, this direction shall not, however, apply to I'~
.,
persons whose eviction has been stayed -by High Court in )':
c any proceedings.

2. Persons who are not in Government service but require
Government accommodation, because of security reasons,
should be tried to be accommodated within one complex
D so that their security is ensured and State has to incur
~
lesser amount for their security.

3. No person who is not a Government servant, but is .·"<
provided the Government accommodation for security
reasons, shall be given more than one Unit of
E
accommodation in the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

Persons who are at present having Government
houses both at Jammu and Srinagar be asked for a choice
and evicted from the other house. This shall also be done
F within one month.

4. The houses and the accommodation Units available with
the State Government shall be classified by a Committee
to be appointed by the Chief Secretary of the State within
G six months and the entitlement of a particular officer to a
particular type of accommodation shall be determined by
that classification. A separate queue shall be maintained
for separate type of accommodation in which applications \ •:
\shall be considered for the type of accommodation to
which the applicant will be entitled on the basis of his
H
J.L. KOUL & ORS. v. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 455

status and grade, which may be classified by the A
. ~ J
Committee.

5. A Government Officer who has his own house at the
place where he is stationed, shall not be entitled to
Government accommodation." B
5. In view of the fact that the present appellants, who were
occupying the said Government accommodation, were directed
to be evicted from the houses allotted to them and no other
accommodation was available, they preferred the Letters Patent
Appeal (OWP No.50/1997) which stood dismissed vide c
judgment and order dated 14.3.1997. However, the High Court
had given the opportunity to the appellants to approach the
concerned authorities for appropriate relief.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached this Court D
-'
and this Court vide order dated 11.4 .1997 passed the interim
order to maintain st~tus quo regarding possession of the
properties. The matter had been heard on several occasions
since then and .this Court made an attempt to find out as to
whether it could be practically possible to ask the appellants
to occupy their own houses and whether it would be possible
i=
for the State to ensure protection of their person and properties
as is evident from the order dated 26.8.1997. During this period
of 12 years this case remained pending and the Court had
been insisting upon the State to frame the scheme of
F
rehabilitation of the appellants and particularly for providing
them accommodation. When the matter was heard on
29.4.2008, the State authorities were given time to prepare the
rehabilitation scheme. But no steps were taken by the
respondent-State. This Court vide order dated 3.12.2008
directed the respondent-State to frame the rehabilitation G
scheme within a period of six months and place it before the
~
"· Court. As no material/scheme could be placed by the
respondent-State before this Court, this Court vide order dated
17.9.2009 directed the Chief Secretary of the State to file his
personal affidavit as to what steps had been taken in pursuance H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A of the orders passed by this Court on 29.4.2008 and 3.12.2008.

7. In pursuance of the said order, the Chief Secretary has
filed the affidavit dated 6.10.2009. In the said affidavit it has
been disclosed that out of 54 appellants 23 had already handed
over the Government accommodation to the State Department
8
and the same had been allotted to the Government employees.
Only 31 migrants/retirees are presently in occupation of the
Government accommodation. It has further been clarified that
there are 37,280 families who have been registered for the
C relief including the accommodation and out of them only 5,000
families could be provided the accommodation in the camps.
However, it had been undertaken that the Government would
provide such facilities to all Kashmiri migrants till they are
residing at the present places. The relevant part of the affidavit
reads as under:-
D
"5. That it is further submitted that Govt. formulated a
package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants
which involves an outlay of Rs.1618.40 crores. This is for
the first time since 1990, that Govt. of India has come up
E with a policy for Return and Rehabilitation of Kashmiri
Migrants. the policy has been framed on the
recommendations of a working group constituted by Govt.
of India to suggest various confidence building measures
in the J&K State.
F
While framing the policy various needs of the
migrants have been taken into consideration, such as
housing, education, revival of Agriculture and Horticulture
land, employment etc. The details of the package
announced on 5th June 2008 are reproduced as under:-
G
(i) Return and Rehabilitation Package of Kashmiri
Migrants: t
•
>--..

The total package involves an outlay of Rs.1618.40 crore.
The main components of the package are as under:
H
J.L. KOUL & ORS. v. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 457

(a) Housing A
.. J

(i) Assistance@ Rs.7.5 lac for fully or partially damaged
house left behind by migrant.

(ii) Rs.2.00 lac for dilapidated/unused houses.
B
(iii) Rs.7.5. lac for purchas~/construction of a house in
Group Housing Societies for those who have sold their.
.- properties during the period after ,1989 and before the
enactment of "The J&K Migrant Immovable Property
(Preservation, Protection and Restraint of Distress Sale) c
Act, 1997" on 30.5.1997.

(b) Transit Accommodation : Construction of transit
accommodation at three sites @ Rs.20.00 crore each for
total Rs.60.00 crore. Alternatively, Rs.1.00 lac per family
D
towards rental and incidental expenses to those families
who may not be accommodated in transit accommodation.

(c) Continuation of Cash Relief to Migrants: Migrants
families at Jammu and Delhi who are recipients of cash
relief and free ration would continue to receive the same E
@ Rs.5000 per family per month (including rations) for a
period of two years after their return to the valley.

7. That it may be further submitted that unemployed youth
were asked to convey their willingness for serving in
F
Kashmir Valley. In response to the same, 14074
unemployed youth have expressed their willingness in
writing for serving in Kashmir valley.

8. That it is further submitted that a form called
"EXPRESSION OF INTEREST" was circulated among the G
migrants in order to ascertain their willingness to return to
~. valley and so far 1676 families have expressed their
willingness to return to valley and avail the concession
available under the package.
H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 9. That it is further submitted that land at the following three
sites have already been identified for construction of transit
'( ,.. .
accommodation, the details whereof are as under:

a- Land at Vessu, District Kulgam 100 Kanals.
~
B b- Land at Qazigund, District Anantnag 25 Kanals.

c- Land at Khanpura, District Baramulla 50 Kanals

10. That it may be further submitted that 200 flats are - "":-

nearing completion at Sheikhpora Budgam. In addition to
c this, 18 flats are available at Mattan Anantnag. These flats
are to be used as transit accommodation by the Kashmiri
migrants who wish to return to valley. The migrants shall
stay in the transit accommodation till they re-construct or
•
renovate their houses.
D .....
11. That it may be further submitted that State Government .
had also constituted an Apex Advisory Committee to
oversee the implementation of Return and Rehabilitation
package for Kashmiri Migrants in the month of September
E 2009 and immediately after the constitution of the Apex
Level Committee, various sugges;tions were put forth in a
meeting held on 23.9.2009. ·
I>
12. That it may be further submitted that the State Cabinet
vide its decision No.130/11 /2009 dated 1.10.2009 has
F ....
approved the package for Return and Rehabilitation of
Kashmiri Migrants to Kashmir Valley. However, with regard
to implementation of employment scheme a Committee
has also been ordered to be constituted to go into the legal
and other implications for making recruitments of the
G migrant youth against various posts before the said
scheme is formally notified. The Committee has to submit
its. report within a period of two weeks. 1"'

13. That the State Government is keen to rehabilitate the
H Kashmiri Migrants in the Kashmir valley and shall provide
J.L. KOUL & ORS. v. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 459

every type of assistance for their return and rehabilitation. A
, _.. } The process for th~ rehabilitation in valley has been
initiated in June 2008 after Govt. of India ~nnounced the
package for their return."

8. The aforesaid affidavit makes it clear that the State
8
Authorities have framed the rehabilitation scheme and for
implementation of the same, it got the resources also. In such
a fact situation no further action/direction is required.

9. In view of the above affidavit/undertaking given by the
State and after hearing Mrs. Purnima Bhat Ka~:. Ld. Counsel C
for the appellants and Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Ld. Counsel for the
State, we dispose of the appeal with a pious hope that State
shall take all endeavours to rehabilitate the persons who have
been victim of terrorism and till the State is able to rehabilitate
and provide the appropriate accommodation to 31 appellants- D
retirees/oustees, they shall continue to possess the
accommodations which are in their respective possession on
this date.

R.P. Appeal disposed of.

t