Srinagar, May, 13: High Court held that a lawful lessee cannot be treated as unauthorized occupant on account of striking down of Roshni Act and directed the authorities to regularize the leasehold premises in favour of the appellant.
The appellant-Radha Krishan Koul’s case was that the land measuring 5 Marlas, along with a structure situated at Sheikh Bagh, Lal Chowk, Srinagar, originally belonged to Pandit Haldar Joo and Pandit Tarachand and was transferred to them vide Government Order No. D.K. 68 of 1957 dated 06.09.1957.
The lease initially expired in 1974, after which the appellant-Koul applied for renewal and conferment of proprietary rights. The lease was subsequently renewed from 01.04.1974 through Government Order dated 15.02.1982 for another 40 years.
In the meantime, the Government issued Order No. Rev/NDK/248 of 1981 pursuant to Cabinet Decisions dated 22.06.1981 and 17.08.1981 for conferment of proprietary rights, and the appellants obtained the requisite No Objection Certificate on 13.08.1981. Despite recommendations from the Assistant Commissioner Nazool and the Divisional Commissioner, no action was taken to regularize the land under the said policy.
The appellants maintain that they were eligible for regularization under the 1981 Government Order and had fulfilled all requirements, including obtaining the necessary NOC from the Srinagar Development Authority. They allege that, despite this, they were subjected to prolonged inaction, while similarly situated cases, such as that of M/s Ahdoos Restaurant, were regularized under comparable Government orders at significantly lower rates.
The appellants further state that due to militancy, they were compelled to leave the Valley after one of them survived a life-threatening attack. Upon restoration of normalcy, they resumed efforts for regularization of their leasehold property and expressed willingness to pay market rates ranging from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 30 lakhs per Kanal, as recommended by the Nazool Department.
However, the respondent-authorities allegedly forced their case under the Roshni scheme, which had already been shelved, thereby exposing them to the threat of eviction. Aggrieved by this action and denial of parity with similarly situated cases, they approached this court seeking quashing of the impugned order and enforcement of their rights under the 1981 Government Order.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar said, the doctrine of legitimate expectation squarely applies, as the appellants had a reasonable expectation that their case would be considered under the 1981 policy, especially in light of recommendations made by competent authorities.
The court while holding the claim of appellants as genuine and not covered under the Roshni Act said, the appellants’ case, in fact, stood on an entirely different footing and was squarely governed by the Government Order of 1981.
It has been further added that the land in question, belonging to the Nazool Department, had been lawfully leased to the appellants, who were entitled to seek conferment of proprietorship rights upon payment of one-half of the market value in terms of the Government Order of 1981. “The expiry of the lease in 2014, coupled with the subsequent striking down of the Roshni Act of 2001, placed the appellants in a precarious position due to the respondents’ erroneous application of the said Act”, reads the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
