Forced migration precludes cancellation of industrial allotments; alternate sites must be provided without charging additional premiums.

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

Following the mass migration in 1989, the Petitioner’s proprietor fled to Jammu for safety, leading to the abandonment of the unit

In 1991, the shed suffered fire damage

Subsequently, the State re-allotted Shed No. 5 to Respondent No. 6

In a previous round of litigation (OWP No. 488/1996), the High Court directed the State to either provide a similar shed to the Petitioner or restore Shed No. 5

The official respondents offered alternate sheds (DS/NB 7 & 8) at Rangreth but imposed higher rent and premium payments, unlike the original terms

While contempt proceedings regarding these conditions were pending, the respondents issued Order No. IDC/B/2004/73 on 06.04.2004, cancelling the alternate allotment on grounds of non-completion of formalities

The Petitioner challenged this cancellation and sought restoration of the original shed

The Court applied the principles of Natural Justice, which prohibit administrative actions that prejudice vested rights without fair procedure

It invoked the Doctrine of Equity, emphasizing that the State must act in a fair and non-discriminatory manner when dealing with citizens displaced by extraordinary circumstances

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the fiduciary-like obligation of the State to act as a "protector" rather than a "predator" of property belonging to Kashmiri migrants who were forced to abandon their assets due to security threats

The Court reasoned that the official respondents exploited the forced migration of the Petitioner’s proprietor to re-allot his leasehold property to a third party

It characterized the State’s conduct as a "perversion" of its duty, noting that the absence of the proprietor was a matter of survival rather than voluntary abandonment

The Court found that the offer of alternate sheds at Rangreth was a "mirage" and "eyewash" because the respondents demanded high premiums and significantly higher rents (Rs. 5,250/- vs. original Rs. 150/-) while treating the Petitioner as a new allottee rather than a displaced original allottee

The Court further determined that the rules of natural justice were "thrown to the winds" when the respondents cancelled the alternate allotment during the turmoil, as it was unreasonable to expect a migrant to restore industrial activity when personal safety was not guaranteed

Consequently, the Court found the State's actions to be unfair, inequitable, and a violation of the Petitioner’s vested rights

The Court held that the Petitioner was subjected to inequitable treatment and directed the official respondents to carry forward the allotment of two sheds at the Industrial Estate, Rangreth

The Court specifically ordered that (i) no premium shall be charged for the allotment, (ii) the rent shall be at the prevalent rate but only prospectively from the date the Petitioner takes possession, and (iii) no arrears shall be insisted upon

If the specific sheds are unavailable, the respondents must provide equivalent new ones