The right to property under Article 300A cannot be infringed without due process, and unilateral actions to fix rental charges without consent are invalid.

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 No1340/044-min situated at Beehama Ganderbal. The said building was leased out by the petitioner to respondent No.6–Central University, Kashmir, by virtue of agreement dated 20.09.2018 for the purpose of operating hostel for its students and the said agreement came to be extended from time to time till 19.02.2021. In this regard copy of one of the rent agreements executed between petitioner and respondent No.6 on 26.11.2020 has been placed on record. According to the petitioner, the latest lease agreement between him and respondent No.6-University was to expire on 19.02.2021 and as per this agreement, respondent No.6 had agreed to pay rent @Rs.12 per sqft for the built-up area. Even prior to the execution of latest agreement dated 26.11.2020, respondent No.6 was in possession of the building in question.

3) It has been contended that as per the terms of the rent agreement dated 26.11.2020, respondent No.6 was to hand over possession of the building to the petitioner on 19.02.2021 but prior to that, the building was taken over forcibly by District Administration, Ganderbal, without any consent of the petitioner. It has been averred that on 30.03.2021, a communication was issued by respondent No.6/Central University, informing the petitioner that in the last week of December, 2020, the District Administration, Ganderbal, has taken over the building and the same was not handed over back to the University, therefore, the University would not be in a position to pay rentals to the petitioner beyond 15th February, 2021. The petitioner was, accordingly, asked to take up the matter regarding payment of rentals with the District Administration, Ganderbal, beyond the aforesaid period.

4) According to the petitioner, he filed a civil suit seeking a declaration and injunction against the respondent Central University as well as against District Development Commissioner, Ganderbal, in which District Development Commissioner Ganderbal, filed a written statement taking a stand that the commercial complex belonging to the petitioner has not been taken over by District Administration, Ganderbal. It has been submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the Principal District Judge, Ganderbal, appointed a Commissioner for visiting the site and to repot as to who is in possession of the building in question. The Commissioner reported that the building is in possession of the District Administration. It has also been submitted that in the meantime, impugned communication dated 23.03.2022 came to be issued by respondent No.5 seeking post facto sanction from respondent No.3 for occupying the building belonging to the petitioner and for release of rentals in his favour.

5) In view of the aforesaid changed circumstance, the petitioner is stated to have withdrawn the civil su