The court ruled that claims for proprietary rights under a void act are unenforceable and emphasized the necessity for full candor in litigation.

JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

1) In view of the identical issues involved in these writ petitions, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

II. BRIEF FACTS OF WP(C) No. 202/2021

2) The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs which are reproduced as under:

(i) A writ of certiorari for quashing order No. Rev/NDK/81/69-II dated 19.09.2005 to the extent it accords proprietorship only over 3 marlas and 269 sq. ft. of land on paymentofRs.80.00lakhsperkanal;

(ii) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accord similar treatment as given to other leaseholders under Government Order No. Rev/NDK/248 of 1981 dated

17.08.1981;and (iii) A direction to produce records regarding grant of proprietary rights to similarly situated persons in the same shoppingline

3) Brief facts of the petition are that the leased property measuring 5 marlas along with a structure at Sheikh Bagh, Srinagar, originally belonged to Pandit Haldar Joo and Pandit Tarachand and stood transferred to the petitioners vide Government Order No. D.K. 68 of 1957 dated 06.09.1957. The lease expired in 1974, whereafter the petitioners applied for its renewal and also sought conferment of proprietary rights. The lease was renewed from 01.04.1974 by Government Order No. Rev/NDK/43 of 1982 dated 15.02.1982. Meanwhile, Government Order No. Rev/NDK/248 of 1981 (for short “the Government of Order of 1981”) had been issued pursuant to Cabinet Decisions No. 280 dated 22.06.1981 and No. 356 dated 17.08.1981 for conferment of proprietary rights. The petitioners obtained the requisite NOC on 13.08.1981.

4) The grievance of the petitioners is that despite repeated recommendations by the Assistant Commissioner Nazool and the Divisional Commissioner, no action was taken to regularize their land under the Government Order of 1981. Ultimately, in 2005, only 3 marlas and 269 sq. ft. were regularized, that too under the J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership Rights) Act, 2001 (Roshni Act) upon payment of Rs. 80 lakhs per kanal. The petitioners therefore allege discrimination as other similarly situated leaseholders were charged only Rs. 3.80 lakhs per kanal under the Government Order of 1981.

5) It is pleaded by the petitioners that despite having the NOC and recommendation from the concerned authorities and having raised their concerns with competent authorities to regularize their land pursuant to government order No. Rev/NDK/248 of 1981 dated 17/8/1981, theyare being denied the same treatment when the similarly situated persons having leasehold properties in the same vicinity stands regularized, by conferment of proprietary rights upon them, which according to petitioners violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India .

6) While the representation was pending for consideration before the government for implementation of the Government order of 1981, a writ petition WP (C) No. 202/2021 was preferred by the petitioner before the High Court for the implementation of the Government order of 1981, wherein the Court directed the maintenance of status quo subject to objections and till next date of hearing. However, Respondent No.5 issued Notice No. ACN/R/L/85 dated 27/10/2021, authorized by Section 4(1) of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988, calling upon the petitioners to show cause by 08/11/2021 as to why an eviction order should not be issued. The petitioners challenged the said notice by filing the instant petition seeking quashing of order No. ACN/R/L/85 dated

27/10/2021.

III. BRIEFFACTS OFWP(C) 2581/2021