BSF Jawan Falsely Claimed 6 Family Members Killed, Ordered to Return ₹6 Lakh

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the recovery of ₹6 lakh from a serving Border Security Force (BSF) jawan after finding that he had obtained ex-gratia relief on the basis of a false claim that six members of his family were killed by militants in 1993. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, in an order dated 30 September 2026, dismissed the writ petition filed by Nazir Ahmad Mir and said the money could not be retained because it would amount to unjust enrichment.

The case concerned Mir, a resident of Shalla Bathu village near the Line of Control in Kupwara district. According to his claim, militants set fire to his house in May 1993 and killed his father, mother, two brothers and two sisters. However, the police complaint was made only in 1997, when Mir approached Police Station Kupwara. A Daily Diary entry was recorded on 8 March 1997, nearly four years after the alleged incident. Death certificates were then issued, and on 15 September 1997 the District Level Screening-cum-Coordination Committee sanctioned ₹1 lakh for each of the six persons. The full amount of ₹6 lakh was paid to Mir alone.

The matter later came under scrutiny after a newspaper report in May 1999 titled “Government gives away relief package for dead families living in PoK.” That report triggered inquiries by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Jammu and Kashmir Home Department and the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. Those inquiries concluded that the relatives were not killed in militant violence, but had crossed over to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir along with other border residents. An administrative probe by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, went further and held that the relief had been secured through fabricated records allegedly prepared in collusion with local police and revenue officials.

Following that probe, recovery was ordered in 2022. The BSF thereafter directed that the amount be deducted from Mir’s salary in 30 monthly instalments beginning in 2023.

What the petitioner argued

In the High Court, Mir’s counsel argued that the relief had been sanctioned after official verification more than 25 years earlier, and that Indian authorities could not independently verify events inside PoK. The petition also claimed that the recovery was arbitrary and had been ordered without giving Mir a proper hearing.

The Union Territory administration and the BSF opposed the petition, maintaining that the inquiry had established that the family had migrated to PoK. They also argued that Mir had been issued notice and that his statement had been recorded during the proceedings.

Court finds contradictions in the record

Justice Oswal rejected the challenge after examining the sequence of events and the documents on record. The court noted that the police record relating to the alleged 1993 incident had been created only in March 1997. It also recorded that no bodies were ever recovered or handed over, and that counsel for Mir conceded the bodies had never been delivered.

The Bench said it “strains credulity” that a person who had supposedly lost six family members in 1993 would remain silent for four years before making a complaint. It also pointed to inconsistencies in the narrative. One document referred to a firing incident in 1990, while the petition was based on alleged militant violence in 1993. Another report dated 5 May 1997, prepared on Mir’s own application, stated that all family members except one sister had been killed, yet the record did not explain why compensation was paid only to Mir and not to the surviving sister.

On that basis, the court held that Mir had “utterly failed to prove that six of his family members died in 1993” and said his “lack of candor is clear from his repeatedly shifting claims.” The Bench also rejected the argument that natural justice had been denied, observing that notice had been issued and his statement recorded during the 2001 inquiry by the Additional Deputy Commissioner.

Emphasising that “fraud unravels everything,” the court said that the passage of time could not legitimise financial gains obtained through illicit means. It concluded that the sanction had been procured in collusion with police and revenue officials and that permitting Mir to retain the amount would amount to unjust enrichment. The writ petition was dismissed and the recovery left undisturbed.

Advocate Dar Khurshid appeared for the petitioner. Central Government Counsel Faizan Ganai, appearing vice Deputy Solicitor General T. M. Shamsi, represented the Union of India and the BSF. Government Advocate Ilyas Laway appeared for the Union Territory administration.