Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 16: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed two connected writ petitions filed by elderly residents of Safakadal, Srinagar, challenging eviction proceedings and seeking proprietary rights over Nazool land at Sheikh Bagh.
The High Court held that the petitioners were neither entitled to ownership under the 1981 Government Order nor protected from eviction after expiry of their lease, and strongly deprecated their conduct for suppressing material facts from the court.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while delivering a common judgment, observed that the petitioners attempted to claim parity with other leaseholders despite falling under a completely different statutory regime. The High Court clarified that benefits granted under the Government Order No. Rev/NDK/248 of 1981 could not be extended to the petitioners as they were not lessees at the relevant time when the policy came into force
The petitioners had contended that they were discriminated against since similarly placed leaseholders in the same shopping line were granted proprietary rights at concessional rates under the 1981 Government Order. However, the High Court rejected this claim, noting that the lease of the petitioners had already expired in 1974 and was renewed only in 1982-after issuance of the 1981 policy.
“Eligibility under a statutory scheme must be judged on the cut-off date prescribed therein,” the Court observed, holding that the petitioners failed to establish any enforceable right under the 1981 order.
The High Court further noted that the petitioners had themselves applied for regularisation under the J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership Rights) Act, 2001 (Roshni Act), pursuant to which ownership of only 3 marlas and 259 sq. ft. was conferred upon them in 2005 at a rate of Rs 80 lakh per kanal. However, the Court reiterated that the Roshni Act had already been declared void ab initio by a Division Bench, rendering all actions taken under it legally non-existent.
Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners could not claim any vested or accrued rights even on the basis of such regularization. It was further observed that the lease expired on 01 April 2014, after which the petitioners neither sought renewal nor paid ground rent for the remaining land. In light of Land Grants Rules, 2022 and S.O. 668 dated 09.12.2022, outgoing lessees of commercial land are required to vacate the premises and are liable to eviction under the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988.
The Court held that the Assistant Commissioner Nazool, acting as Estate Officer, was fully empowered under Section 4(1) of the Act to issue the eviction notice dated 27th October 2021, and the same could not be termed illegal or without jurisdiction.
In a stern observation, the Court recorded that the petitioners had deliberately suppressed material facts, including withdrawal of earlier writ petitions (OWP No. 2336/2018 and OWP No. 383/2019) after replies were filed by the Government.
Calling it a “calculated attempt to mislead the court,” Justice Nargal held that a litigant invoking writ jurisdiction must approach the Court with utmost candour. While observing that the case warranted imposition of exemplary costs, the Court took a lenient view considering the advanced age of the petitioners and refrained from doing so. Both writ petitions were dismissed, interim directions vacated, and the authorities were granted liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
