Srinagar: The Indian Army's argument that it could not be penalised for felling fruit trees on the property it has rented out in Jammu and Kashmir was rejected by a court. The Army used the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to request protection. According to Bandipora's Principal Session Judge Amit Sharma, "no need for the plaintiff to obtain sanction from the Central government before filing a suit in such type of controversy".
Ghulam Rasool Wani, a resident of Chuntimulla hamlet in Bandipora, said in his petition that the Indian Army's 14 Rashtriya Rifles (RR) had rented out his property in 2001. There were 85 trees on the property at the time of ownership, some of which bore fruit. Six walnut trees were among the 64 trees the Indian Army allegedly felled between 2001 and 2009, according to the petition. According to Wani, the Army also used lumber and wood from the harvested trees.
The Jammu & Kashmir government's horticulture department estimated that chopping down trees had cost them Rs 5,20,922, including Rs 3,20,922 for six walnut trees and Rs 2 lakhs for other trees like poplars and willows.
In addition, the petitioner claimed that the Army had prevented him from harvesting the other trees' fruits, and the horticulture department assessed losses to the tune of Rs 1,54,800 over an eight-year period (from 2001 to 2009), amounting to a total loss of Rs 6,75,722.
Also read: Baramulla youth 'illegally' detained under PSA for over a year; J&K High Court summons DC
According to the petitioner, the Army refused to pay the compensation determined by government agencies, forcing him to file a lawsuit in 2018. He has requested Rs 6,75,722 in damages in his appeal, as well as interest at the current rate. When the case was taken up for hearing, the defence attorney, Karnail Singh, asserted that no legal action could be taken against the Army without the prior approval of the Central government, citing Section 7 of the AFSPA, which reads in part: "No prosecution suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act." Shafiq Ahmad Bhat, the attorney for the petitioner, refuted the Army's claim, calling it a selective reading of the Act.
Justice Amit Sharma said in his ruling that the AFSPA does not cover the debate around the chopping of trees. “…it is proper to highlight the relevant Section 4 of AFSPA on the strength of which protection has been provided to the Armed Forces regarding the exercise of powers in disturbed areas. From the five clauses contained under Section 4 (a to e), the present controversy demonstrated in the main suit is nowhere covered within the ambit of Special Powers provided to the Armed Forces under this Act. Thereby, in the present suit, the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant are purely civil in nature…”
The Army is only a tenant in this case, the court determined. According to the court's perspective, the defendant in the current dispute has the status of a "tenant," and as such, they are not permitted to remove trees from the land that they rented out. The plaintiff does not require permission from the Central government to file a lawsuit in these sorts of disputes, the court said.
