Forced migration is not abandonment; State cannot cancel industrial allotments or charge premiums for alternatives.

The Petitioner, a registered small-scale industrial unit owned by a Kashmiri Pandit, was allotted Shed No. 5 at Bagh-i-Ali Mardan Khan Industrial Area, Srinagar, in 1978

Following the mass migration of 1989, the proprietor fled to Jammu for safety, effectively abandoning the unit

In 1991, the shed suffered fire damage

While the Petitioner was in migration, the State re-allotted Shed No. 5 to Respondent No. 6 in 1996

The Petitioner successfully challenged this in OWP No. 488/1996, where the Court directed the State to either provide a similar shed or return Shed No. 5

In purported compliance, the State offered two sheds at Rangreth but imposed high premiums and rent significantly higher than the original allotment

After various contempt proceedings and modifications, the State issued Order No. IDC/B/2004/73 on 06.04.2004, cancelling the Rangreth allotment due to the Petitioner's alleged failure to complete formalities

The Petitioner filed the present writ seeking to quash the cancellation and recover possession of Shed No. 5

1. Whether the State's cancellation of the alternative industrial shed allotment was legally sustainable given the Petitioner’s status as a forced migrant.

2. Whether the State fulfilled its obligation to protect and preserve the leasehold property of a displaced person during a period of civil unrest.

The Court applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the requirement of fair hearing and reasonableness in administrative action

It relied on the doctrine of the State’s fiduciary duty to act as a "protector" rather than a "predator" regarding the properties of citizens displaced by forced migration

The Court emphasized that administrative actions must be equitable and account for extraordinary circumstances, such as internal displacement due to security threats

The Court observed that the State exploited the Petitioner’s forced absence by re-allotting his original shed to a third party, describing the State's conduct as "predatory"

It reasoned that because the migration was a matter of life and limb, the State had a solemn obligation to protect the Petitioner’s leasehold interest rather than treating the absence as a voluntary abandonment

The Court found that the subsequent offer of alternative sheds at Rangreth was a "mirage" and "eyewash" because the State attempted to treat the Petitioner as a new allottee by demanding premiums and exorbitant rent, rather than restoring him to his original position

Furthermore, the Court held that cancelling the allotment while contempt proceedings were pending and while the security situation prevented the Petitioner’s return was a violation of natural justice and an unfair exercise of administrative power

It held that the Petitioner was subjected to inequitable treatment and that justice must be restored by adjusting equities

The Court directed the official respondents to: (i) carry forward the allotment of two sheds at Rangreth if vacant, or provide new ones; (ii) waive any requirement for premium payments; and (iii) charge rent at the prevalent rate only prospectively from the date of actual possession, without insisting on past arrears

The impugned cancellation order was effectively set aside through these directions