[ad_1]
Ghulam Rasool Wani felt as if his “limbs were cut off”. The army cut down six walnut trees, some of them nearly 70 years old, in his ancestral orchard in Chontimola village in Jammu and Kashmir.
Wani, 85, said his orchard was leased to 14-gun Rashtriyas in 2001 and that 64 of the 85 trees — poplars, willows and walnuts — were cut down without his permission over the next eight years. He said that their wood was used to make bunkers for the army.
After being denied access even to the nut harvest, Wani finally went to court in 2018 seeking compensation for the felled trees. Although the military has argued that he cannot be prosecuted because he is protected under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), The court recently rejected her claim. Justice Amit Kumar at the Bandipora Main Hearings ruled that “there is no need for the plaintiff to seek approval from the central government before filing a case in such kind of controversy”. The case went to hearing on July 4.
“Nuts are our life. They support us. They are our livelihood,” said Wani, who took a deep breath as he spoke of his “first small victory” in his 22-year battle with the army. In taking care of those trees.”
The army’s arrival in Chuntimulla in 2001 was necessary due to the village being used as a battleground by the militants. The village lies at the crossroads connecting the Line of Control (LoC) in Gurez with Bandipora and Kangan in Ganderbal, a treacherous route often used by militants to infiltrate the valley. 13 km long road up to the village which is located in the mountains of Bandipura. The mighty walnut trees dotting the rolling fields of the village have been the lifeblood of its economy for decades. As per the Jammu and Kashmir Preservation of Specific Trees Act 1969, a walnut tree cannot be felled or pruned, even if it is standing on private land.
In 2018, J&K’s horticultural division assessed Wani’s loss at Rs 6,75,722 – Rs 3,20,922 for six walnut trees, Rs 2 lakh for other trees and Rs 1,54,800 for the eight years he was not allowed to harvest nuts. (Quick photo by Shoaib Masoudi)
lease
Wani said that the military rented a 25-qanat (approximately 3 acre) orchard belonging to him and his cousins. He explained that although there is no formal lease agreement between the security forces and private landowners for the land on which the army and paramilitary camps are built, the state government – Department of Revenue (in the case of land) and Department of Roads and Buildings (in the case of buildings) – rent reforms.
However, the Rental Assessment Committee (RAC), chaired by the Deputy Commissioner, has the final say on the amount of rent. Claiming that the rent fixed by the government was usually half the prevailing market rate, Wani said the sum for his orchard was fixed at 210 rupees per canal (1,680 rupees per acre), totaling nearly 5,500 rupees per month.
Wani said I wasn’t allowed to set foot inside his grove to harvest nuts for eight years, starting in 2001. He cut down the trees. I don’t remember his name, but the officer assaulted me and tried to hit me.”
Wani (right) said the 14 Rashtriya Rifles rented the orchard, which belonged to him and his cousins, in 2001 to set up a camp where the village of Chontimola was being used as a battlefield by the militants. (Quick photo by Shoaib Masoudi)
Hurt by the officer’s behavior, 70-year-old Wani decided to fight for his right. He made a statement before the Deputy Commissioner of Bandipura and the Horticultural Department. This representation was just the beginning of his legal battle with the military. There were many obstacles along the way for him.
Getting to Bandipora from Chuntimulla was no picnic. Wani remembers walking about 10 kilometers on the winding road before he came across a car that would take him to the Deputy Commissioner’s office in Bandipura. Those days were tough. There were no cars. I remember walking through 5 feet of snow several times to get to Bandipora. For many years I would go home in the evening without any help from the government.
Wani’s perseverance
But Wani remained completely unfazed. Admiring his perseverance, the Then Deputy Commissioner Bandipura Shah Faisal Set rolling ball. In 2016, Faisal wrote a letter to the main director of defense real estate asking him to “take the necessary measures” in the matter. The letter stated that the army cut down 64 of the 85 trees in Wani’s grove. However, the message did not result in any action.
“The trees were bearing high-quality nuts and birza,” Wani said as he unpacked bundles of papers documenting his struggle for compensation.
Pointing out that a single barza nut costs 5-8 rupees in the open market, Wani stated that when he protested against the felling of trees, the army said that the government would “compensate us”.
In 2018, the State Horticultural Department assessed his losses at Rs 6,75,722 – Rs 3,20,922 for six walnut trees, Rs 2 lakh for other trees and Rs 1,54,800 for the eight years he was not allowed to harvest nuts. The evaluation report stated that some walnut trees are over 70 years old.
As Wani’s repeated pleas to the military fell on deaf ears, he sent them a legal notice based on the compensation valued by the government. However, the army failed to act again. In 2018, Wani finally goes to court. In his petition, he sought compensation of Rs 6,75,722, along with interest on current rates.
Wani, who can barely walk without a cane, said, “I would have attended all the hearings but the army wouldn’t. The court issued about 60 summons to the army. An army official appeared in court once. The judge got angry and told him he would put him behind bars for not complying with court notices. He did not appear Nobody from the army again.”
Between 2001 and 2009, Laney was not allowed to set foot in the grove to harvest nuts, and 64 of the 85 trees—poplars, willows, and hickory—were cut down without his permission. He said some of the nut trees are about 70 years old. (Quick photo by Shoaib Masoudi)
When defense lawyer Karnail Singh finally appeared in court, he cited Section 7 of the Armed Forces Special Forces Act, and argued that no legal action could be brought against the military without the Centre’s approval. Section 7 of the Protection of Goods and Services Act reads: “Protection of persons acting in good faith under this Act—No suit, suit or other legal proceeding, save for the foregoing sanction from the Central Government, shall be instituted against any person in connection with anything that has been done.” or alleged in the exercise of the powers conferred by this law.
However, Wani’s lawyer, Shafiq Ahmed Bhatt, challenged the army’s dispute as a selective reading of the law. “I argued before the enlightened judge, and argued each of the eight sections of the Special Forces Protection Act. The learned judge was convinced by my arguments,” he told the Indian Express earlier.
Chief District Magistrate Bandipora noted that the army was nothing more than a hireling in this case. “The Defendant’s learned counsel opened his arguments, thereby stating that the present case is subject to Order No. 7 of Rule 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as for lack of cause of action, on this basis only as per Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Protection Act 1990, No litigation, action or other legal proceeding, except for the foregoing sanction from the Central Government, shall be instituted against any person in connection with anything done or purported to be done while exercising the powers conferred by this Act,” the order read.
“After clarifying the aforementioned key point between the two parties, it is appropriate to highlight the relevant Article 4 of the Armed Forces Act on the basis of which protection has been provided to the Armed Forces with regard to the exercise of powers in troubled areas as illustrated in this presentation. Of the five clauses contained in Section 4 (a to e), the present dispute as shown in the main suit does not cover any place within the scope of the special powers conferred upon the Armed Forces by this Act. This means in the present suit that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant is purely civil in nature…”, command added.
Wani, who has four sons and two daughters, all married, said he worked with the local post office as a day-paid runner delivering letters to local addresses before retiring. Rejoicing at his first small victory, he said, “The verdict was my first victory in my 22 years of struggle. I’m hoping. My lawyer said we can win the case now. I have hope for the first time in a very long time.”
[ad_2]
