HC dismisses writ petitions challenging eviction, rejects claim for Proprietary Rights over Nazool Land

17/12/2025

SRINAGAR, Dec 16: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed two connected writ petitions filed by elderly occupants of a Nazool land in Srinagar, challenging eviction proceedings and seeking conferment of proprietary rights under an old government order. The Court held that the petitioners were unauthorized occupants after expiry of lease and had no enforceable right either under the 1981 Government Order or under the now-invalidated Roshni Act.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while delivering a common judgment in WP(C) No. 2581/2021 and WP(C) No. 202/2021, ruled that the petitioners failed to establish any legal entitlement to ownership rights and had approached the Court after suppressing material facts, thereby abusing the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitions were filed by Radha Krishen Koul (85) and Mohan Lal Koul (76), residents of Safakadal, Srinagar, relating to a leased commercial property measuring about five marlas at Sheikh Bagh, Srinagar. The lease, originally granted in 1957, expired in 1974 and was later renewed in 1982.
The petitioners sought quashing of a 2005 government order which accorded proprietary rights only over 3 marlas and 269 sq. ft. of land at a rate of Rs. 80 lakh per kanal under the J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership Rights) Act, 2001 (Roshni Act). They further demanded parity with other leaseholders who were allegedly granted ownership rights at a much lower rate under Government Order No. Rev/NDK/248 of 1981.
In addition, the petitioners challenged a show-cause eviction notice dated 27.10.2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner Nazool-cum-Estate Officer under Section 4(1) of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988.
After examining the record, the Court held that the petitioners were not lessees at the time when Government Order of 1981 was issued, as their lease had already expired in 1974. Therefore, they could not claim any benefit under the said order, nor parity with those who were legally eligible at the relevant time.
Justice Nargal further observed that the petitioners themselves opted to seek regularisation under the Roshni Act, pursuant to which partial ownership was granted in 2005. However, the Court noted that the Roshni Act has already been declared void ab initio by a Division Bench in Prof. S.K. Bhalla v. State of J&K, rendering all actions taken under it legally unsustainable.
The Court categorically held that once the Roshni Act itself stands invalidated, the petitioners cannot claim any vested right flowing from regularisation done under the said statute, nor can they seek quashing of the 2005 order on that basis.
On the issue of eviction, the Court noted that the lease expired in 2014 and the petitioners failed to seek renewal thereafter. In light of the Land Grants Rules, 2022, outgoing commercial lessees are required to hand over possession and are liable to eviction under the Public Premises Act.
Upholding the eviction notice, the Court held that the Estate Officer was well within his statutory authority to issue the impugned notice and no illegality, jurisdictional error, or procedural infirmity was made out.
The Court came down heavily on the petitioners for deliberate suppression of material facts, noting that they had earlier filed and withdrawn two writ petitions-OWP No. 2336/2018 and OWP No. 383/2019-after replies were filed by the authorities, a fact not disclosed in the present proceedings.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments including K.D. Sharma v. SAIL and Dalip Singh v. State of UP, the Court reiterated that a litigant who approaches a writ court must do so with complete candour and clean hands. Suppression of material facts, the Court held, disentitles a party from any equitable or discretionary relief.
Dismissing both writ petitions, the Court vacated all interim protections and granted liberty to the authorities to proceed further in accordance with law. Though the Court observed that the case warranted exemplary costs due to abuse of process, it refrained from imposing costs considering the advanced age of the petitioners, while issuing a stern warning against such conduct in future.
The judgment has been marked as speaking and reportable, reaffirming the principle that no right can be claimed on the basis of an unconstitutional statute and that suppression of facts strikes at the very foundation of justice.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty