Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, J
Abdul Majid Sofi – Appellant
Versus
Ut of J&K – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges illegal occupation (Para 1) |
| 2. details of lease agreement (Para 2) |
| 3. claim of illegal occupation (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. court's directive on rent (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1) The petitioner, through the medium of present writ petition, has challenged communication bearing No.DCG/N(ACCTTS)/2021-22/1537 dated 23.03.2022, issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, in terms whereof property comprising six storied commercial complex, namely, “Namroze”, located at Beehama Ganderbal has been taken over by the said respondent and a post facto sanction has been sought for the said action from respondent No.3. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon respondents No.4 and 5 to vacate the aforesaid commercial complex belonging to him and hand over the possession thereof to the petitioner with a further direction that the respondents be asked to pay rentals in favour of the petitioner with effect from 15.02.2021 till its vacation by the aforesaid respondents @Rs12 per sqft.
2) As per case of the petitioner, he is owner of a six storied building constructed on land falling under Khasra
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.
Point of law: Notices were not served on the same day this Court holds that there is no failure of natural justice or compliance with the provisions of Sections 452 and 636 of the Act.
A property owner retains a right to claim rent for the duration that possession is unlawfully held by the tenant, even post-vacation notice.
In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by High Court unless findings so recorded are shown to be perverse.
Mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises.
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
