Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Dec 7: Holding that allotment of Evacuee Property confers only temporary license and not leasehold or proprietary rights, the High Court dismissed the plea challenging cancellation of lease hold rights by the Custodian Department.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar has held that an allotment under the J&K Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act merely creates a temporary license and is terminable in accordance with statutory provisions. The court clarified that such an allotment does not confer any proprietary or leasehold interest in the property.
The aggrieved party challenged the cancellation through a writ petition in 2009. The writ petition was dismissed in 2023, leading to the instant Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench. The case of the appellants was that the 1978 lease deed granted to their predecessor warrants them a heritable and permanent leasehold right.
They contended that their long-standing possession on the evacuee property situated in the heart of the city and the continuous payment of rent in lieu of the land should not be disturbed as such the cancellation of lease hold rights was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The court however, after examining the relevant records, held that the legal character of the grant must be determined by the nature of the original allotment, not the title or wording used in subsequent instruments.
The Court, while refusing to entertain all these arguments as advanced by the aggrieved persons, has held the leasehold on Evacuee Property is temporary and remains terminable under Rule 14 of the Evacuee Property Rules. “Any document inconsistent with the statutory definition cannot create greater rights than permitted. The arrears of rent for more than three months constitute a valid ground for cancellation under Rule 14(2)”, DB said.
The Court also found that the premises had remained unused for industrial activity, further violating the conditions of allotment. The appellants did not dispute that the rent arrears were due and substantial. The industrial unit remained closed and occupied by persons other than the allottee.
The Court noted that the writ court granted the appellants liberty to apply for regularization of occupation under Rule 13-C, which they refused to avail. “The appellants could not simultaneously decline compliance with statutory conditions and seek equitable relief from the Court. It was found that no procedural illegality in the decision-making process of the authorities, while stating that no grounds for interference under Letters Patent jurisdiction were made out”, read the judgment.
Accordingly, the Court held that the appellants had no leasehold rights over the property. The allotment conferred only a revocable license terminable on breach of terms. The appeal was dismissed. However, the Liberty already granted to seek regularization remains intact if the appellants choose to comply with statutory requirements.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
