### Administrative delay and erroneous classification under Roshni Act cannot defeat legitimate expectation of regularization under 1981 Policy.

The appellants held 5 Marlas of Nazool land in Sheikh Bagh, Srinagar, under a lease originally transferred in 1957 and subsequently renewed until 2014

In 1981, the Government issued Order No. Rev/NDK/248 for conferment of proprietary rights to Nazool landholders at half the market value. The appellants applied for this regularization and eventually deposited ₹30 lakhs per Kanal as recommended by the Divisional Commissioner

The respondents never finalized the case under the 1981 policy and instead issued an order in 2005 regularizing only a portion (3 Marlas, 269 sq. ft.) under the J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 (“Roshni Act”)

After the Roshni Act was struck down in S.K. Bhalla v. State of J&K, the respondents issued an eviction notice on 27.10.2021, labeling the appellants as unauthorized occupants

The Writ Court dismissed the appellants' challenge, citing suppression of facts regarding previous litigation and holding the 1981 relief untenable

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits arbitrary state action and ensures equals are treated equally

Doctrine of "Legitimate Expectation," as established in Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India, asserting that consistent past practice and government promises create a right to fair consideration

S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, which hold that only the deliberate suppression of material facts—those having a direct bearing on the relief sought—disentitles a litigant to relief

Definitions of "State land" and occupancy rights under the J&K State Lands Act, 2001, to distinguish between lawful lessees and trespassers

The Court found that the appellants were not unauthorized occupants but lawful lessees whose possession was permissive and protected by valid lease documents extended until 2014

The Court reasoned that the respondents erred by unilaterally shifting the appellants' case to the Roshni Act framework when the appellants had consistently sought regularization under the 1981 policy and had already deposited the required market rate

It was held that since a similarly situated entity (Hotel Ahdoos) was granted proprietary rights under the 1981 Order at a lower rate, denying the same to the appellants—who were willing to pay a higher revised rate—was arbitrary and violated Article 14

The Court determined that the previous litigations (concerning demolition and rent) were distinct causes of action; therefore, their non-disclosure did not constitute suppression of material facts relevant to the claim for ownership rights

The Court directed the respondents to accord the appellants the same treatment as Hotel Ahdoos under Government Order No. Rev/NDK/248 of 1981 and to regularize the 5 Marlas of leasehold premises at Kothibagh within three months