Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Apr 22: In a significant ruling reinforcing property rights and due process, the High Court has quashed an eviction order issued by the Defence Estate Officer of the Cantonment Board (CB), Srinagar, holding that a registered sale deed enjoys a strong presumption of validity that cannot be brushed aside through summary proceedings.
Justice M A Chowdhary set aside the order dated August 8, 2022, passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, observing that such summary mechanisms cannot be invoked in cases involving complex disputes over ownership. The Court underscored that the petitioners had been in possession of the land-measuring 6 marlas at Bonamsar, Sonawar-since before 1950, and their claim was backed by a registered sale deed executed on June 3, 1971.
The dispute traces back to 2003, when the Cantonment Board allegedly interfered with the petitioners’ possession, prompting them to approach a civil court. The civil court had ruled in their favour, restraining the Board from disturbing their possession. Despite this, the Board issued a fresh show-cause notice in May 2022, branding the occupants as encroachers on B-4 category defence land and subsequently passed the eviction order.
The High Court found fault with this approach, noting that the authorities failed to properly consider the petitioners’ reply and supporting documents. It held that the eviction provisions under the 1971 Act are applicable only in clear cases of unauthorized occupation of Government property and cannot be used where there is a bona fide dispute over title.
“The summary remedy prescribed by the Act of 1971 is not suited for adjudication of complicated questions of title,” the Court observed, adding that the Government cannot unilaterally declare ownership in such contested cases.
Emphasizing the evidentiary value of registered documents, the Court ruled that a sale deed carries a “formidable presumption” of genuineness, which can only be rebutted through strong and cogent evidence.
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the impugned order while granting liberty to the respondents to approach a competent civil court to establish ownership. Only after securing such a declaration, the Court said, can proceedings under the 1971 Act be lawfully initiated.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
