Chuntimulla, Bandipora: A prolonged legal battle to seek damages from the Army, which forcibly took control of his walnut orchard in north Kashmir’s Bandipora in 2001, has crooked the back of octogenarian Ghulam Rasool Wani.
Living in abject poverty with four sons – three of whom are unemployed – and their families, Wani, 85, can’t move around without the aid of a wooden cane. But it hasn’t deterred the old farmer from pursuing his fight for justice.
“The money from the sale of walnuts was my only income. We also grew vegetables, chillies and corn, which was sufficient to keep the kitchen stocked throughout the year,” Wani said. “Life would have been better if my orchard was not snatched.”
A resident of Chuntimulla in Bandipora district, Wani won a small victory in his legal battle earlier this month when a court asked the Army to face his civilian suit seeking damages for the trees that were allegedly cut down in his orchard.
The court of principal session judge, Bandipora, Amit Sharma, set aside the Army’s contention that under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), the force was immune from being prosecuted in civilian matters without the Union government’s permission.
“According to the viewpoint of this court, the status of the defendant (Army) in the present controversy is not more than the ‘tenant’ and as a tenant, they are not supposed to make any improvement or cut down any trees existing over the land which was rented out to the Army authorities with effect from 2001,” the court ordered.
Wani’s counsel, advocate Shafiq Bhat, said that the powers of the armed forces protected under AFSPA are defined under Section 4 of the Act – such as opening fire, arresting a person and searching premises without a warrant. “Only those powers are protected under Section 7 of the Act [which grants immunity from prosecution]. The court was convinced by my argument and passed the order in our favour,” he told The Wire.
The ruling came nearly 22 years after the Army’s 14 Rashtriya Rifles occupied a plot of land measuring 25 Kanal and 18 Marlas in Chuntimulla, one of the last villages in the north Kashmir region along the Line of Control. The area was one of the worst militancy-affected areas.
The plot has four owners presently – Wani, Mohammad Yusuf, Mohammad Subhan and Nazir Ahmad, all locals. Wani said that the trees allegedly felled by the Army belonged to him and Yusuf, who together own more than 80% of the occupied land.
Yusuf, whose rundown, single-storied house is adjacent to Wani’s, vividly recalled the day of July 25, 2001, when the army soldiers arrived in the village and initially stayed at a local school.
Speaking with The Wire, the old farmer who sports a white, flowing beard, said that he had constructed a double-storied house in the orchard, where he lived with his family. For sustenance, he raised a herd of cows and other animals whose dung fertilised the trees and a vegetable garden that provided round-the-year supply for the kitchen.
Yusuf said that the Army broke open the main door of the house and forced him to leave along with his family and livestock. Soon, a barbed wire fence sprung up around the land and he was stopped from harvesting walnuts or growing vegetables.
Mohammad Yusuf, one of the four owners of the land forcibly taken over by the Army in 2001 in Bandipora, has been living a life of poverty due to the absence of any other source of income. Photo: Jehangir Ali
Wani said that despite resistance from locals, the Army refused to vacate the land. “They lopped some walnut and poplar trees, and made hutments for themselves out of their timber. We weren’t even allowed to harvest the fruits,” said Wani in a feeble voice.
All four families are officially poor and they told The Wire that the land was their only source of income.
According to Wani, the Army initially paid them Rs 33,000 as yearly rent for the land. “We were afraid of the Army. We couldn’t do anything about it. They fixed the rent without our consent. We aren’t able to speak even now because of fear,” he said.
In 2005, Wani decided to seek justice. After witnessing a group of soldiers felling trees in his orchard, he got into an ugly confrontation with an Army officer. “The officer abused me,” Wani claimed. “It was then that I decided to take a legal recourse.”
Wani approached the local administration, which ordered the horticulture department to survey the losses. According to an official report, a copy of which is with The Wire, 107 walnut, willow and poplar trees were “exterminated from time to time”, while many were damaged.
Six walnut trees – aged between 30-70 years which produced around 500 kg of walnuts every year, the only source of income for Wani – were among the affected trees, according to the report. The cost of the six trees was fixed by the government at Rs 3.2 lakh.
A rent agreement was formalised seven years after the Army took over the land, on January 2, 2008, when Wani threatened to knock on the doors of the court. “Had we planted apple trees there, they would have matured by now. We could be harvesting fruit worth lakhs of rupees today,” he said.
But when the local administration raised the issue of compensating Wani for the loss of trees and fruit, it didn’t get any response from the Army.
“I have sent at least 60 notices, letters and other documents to the Army demanding compensation but they have not responded even once. My sons dropped out of school. We faced a lot of challenges and hardships in these years,” said Wani.
A legal notice sent to the Army in 2017 states that Wani was denied the fruit of the trees from 2001 to 2009, which was assessed by the horticulture department to be worth Rs 1.54 lakh and worth Rs 3 lakh from 2009 to 2017. “My client is being denied many fundamental rights of our Indian Constitution,” it states.
As the civil administration failed to provide relief to Wani, the aged farmer filed a petition in the Bandipora court in 2018. “I was too tired to carry on the fight. My back was crooked and I lost interest in the case,” Wani said.
In response, the Army rejected the allegations that it was involved in damaging the trees and threatened to launch a criminal case against the officers of the administration who had assessed the losses.
“The Army cut down the trees at the time of occupying the land. Their contention that the trees didn’t exist is a lie,” said Bhat, Wani’s lawyer.
‘Your own Chuntimulla camp’, says the signboard at the entrance of the Army camp in this north Kashmir village which has been set up on land belonging to four, poor local families. Photo: Jehangir Ali
Yusuf said that the land was his only source of income and its forcible takeover by the Army pushed him into poverty. “I have no other source of income. Ask anyone in the village and they will tell you that I have suffered the most. From the last two years, even the rent has not been paid,” Yusuf claimed.
The Wire tried reaching the Army’s Srinagar-based spokesperson for comment. This story will be updated if and when the response is received.
The prolonged battle has soured the relationship between the four owners. Yusuf believes that his neighbours conspired to deprive him of his income. “The villagers advised me that it would not be proper for my wife and daughters to stay alone there in the presence of Army soldiers. Little did I realise that it would make me homeless and landless,” he said.
Wani, who doesn’t see any hope of getting his land back, said that the Army should increase the rent paid to the landowners. “In the whole village, my orchard stands out as the most suitable for growing fruit trees and vegetables. But what we are being paid as rent is peanuts,” he said.
However, Yusuf doesn’t want any monetary relief. “I have built a second house but it has four rooms only. All my four sons are married and they have their own families. I can’t accommodate them in four rooms. I want my land back,” he said.