Back
SANJAY DHAR
Kashmir Furnishing Agency – Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he was running the business of sale of furnishing and allied items in Shop No.5 owned by Srinagar Development Authority having the dimensions of 10x15 sft. situated at Nalamar Road, near Nawakadal Chowk, Srinagar, under the name and style of M/S Kashmir Furnishing Agency. According to the petitioner, he was earning an income of Rs.20,000/ per month from the said shop which was duly registered with the Sales Tax Department. It has been submitted that the shop of the petitioner was occupied by the Security Forces in the month of January, 1990, as a result of which he was unable to carry on any business activity from his shop. Till the year 2002, the shop is stated to have remained under the occupation of the Security Forces and in March, 2003, the petitioner took over possession of the said shop. It is case of the petitioner that his shop was occupied by different security agencies like CRPF, BSF etc. from time to time.
2) The petitioner has placed on record the communication issued by SHO, P/S Safakadal Srinagar, according to which his shop has remained under occupation of Security Forces from the year 1990 to June, 2002. It
: It is intention of parties that is required to be considered, in order to determine as to whether document is lease or license.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that eviction from public premises must follow the due process of law as prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants)....
The court established the importance of proper rent assessment for private property occupied by the police and emphasized the distinction between 'eminent domain' and 'police power' of the State.
Continuous possession and acknowledgment by the Custodian Department are crucial in determining property rights in cases of dispute.
Entitlement to challenge allotment requires demonstrating displacement due to construction.
The right to property under Article 300A cannot be infringed without due process, and unilateral actions to fix rental charges without consent are invalid.
The petitioner is not entitled to occupational charges beyond the date of vacation by Security Forces, and claims for additional land are declined unless rent for underlying land is not considered.
The assessment of damages for unauthorized property use persists despite prior communications, reaffirmed by policy provisions, with petitioners failing to establish rights for commercial utilization....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
