HC quashes Housing Board order rejecting claim for Ompora residential plot

30/07/2026

JAMMU, Jul 29: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an order of the Jammu and Kashmir Housing Board rejecting a family's claim for allotment of a residential plot at Ompora Housing Colony in Budgam, holding that an administrative authority cannot reopen issues already settled by a court judgment that has attained finality.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while allowing WP(C) No. 198/2023, quashed Order No. JKHB-115 of 2022 dated August 10, 2022, passed by the Managing Director of the J&K Housing Board and directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioners' claim afresh within four weeks.
The petition was filed by Vijay Koul Sapru, Poonam Sapru and Preyanka Sapru. They were represented by Senior Advocate Shivani Jalali along with Advocate Ranjana Rajput, while Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, assisted by Advocate Priyanka Bhat, appeared for the respondents.
The dispute dates back to 1985 when M.K. Saproo, husband of petitioner Vijay Koul Sapru and father of the other two petitioners, was offered a residential plot measuring 50 feet by 100 feet under the HIG category at Ompora Housing Colony. He deposited Rs. 27,500, representing 50 per cent of the tentative cost of the plot.
According to the petitioners, no further demand was issued for payment of the balance amount. Following disturbed conditions in the Kashmir Valley, the original allottee migrated and later approached the authorities seeking details of the balance amount so that the allotment process could be completed.
In 2009, the Housing Board rejected his claim and asked him to produce the original allotment documents and receipts for processing a refund. The decision was challenged before the High Court, which in 2021 quashed the communication on the ground that the petitioners had been condemned unheard in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The court had then directed the Housing Board to "reconsider and revisit" their claim in view of their willingness to pay the remaining 50 per cent of the plot cost, while permitting the Board to recover the cost at rates prevalent in 2003.
However, the Housing Board again rejected the claim in August 2022, holding it to be devoid of merit and time-barred.
Justice Nargal held that once the 2021 judgment had attained finality and was not challenged before a superior forum, the respondents were legally bound to implement it in its true letter and spirit.
"An authority, while acting in compliance with a judicial direction, cannot exercise powers of an appellate authority over the judgment of the Court or reopen issues which already stand concluded by the said judgment," the High Court observed.
The court said the Housing Board had gone beyond the scope of the earlier judgment by once again examining the alleged failure to deposit the balance amount, the effect of a newspaper notice and the alleged cancellation of the allotment.
The High Court also rejected the Housing Board's plea that the plot had subsequently been allotted to another eligible person. It noted that no such plea appeared to have been raised during the earlier litigation, which remained pending for more than a decade.
Significantly, the court recorded that despite repeated opportunities, the respondents failed to produce the complete original record relating to the allotment and disclose particulars of the alleged subsequent allotment, compelling it to draw an adverse inference against them on that issue.
The court also took note of what it termed inconsistent stands adopted by the Housing Board - on one hand describing the 1985 document merely as a Letter of Intent that created no enforceable right, while on the other referring to M.K. Saproo as an "allottee" whose allotment stood terminated.
"An administrative authority cannot assume unto itself the role of an appellate forum over a judgment rendered by a constitutional Court," Justice Nargal observed, adding that reopening issues already concluded by judicial determination would "erode the majesty of the judicial process".
The court further said compliance with judicial directions could not be a "mechanical or cosmetic exercise" and must be real, meaningful and consistent with both the letter and spirit of the judgment.
Holding the Housing Board's August 2022 order legally unsustainable, the High Court quashed it and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners' claim strictly in accordance with the 2021 judgment without reopening issues already concluded.
A fresh, reasoned and speaking order has been directed to be passed as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within four weeks from the date the judgment along with the writ petition and annexures is made available to the respondents.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty