State cannot charge premium on alternate industrial allotments for units abandoned during forced migration.

The Petitioner, a registered Small Scale Industrial (SSI) unit owned by a Kashmiri Pandit migrant, was originally allotted Industrial Shed No. 5 at Bagh-i-Ali Mardan Khan, Srinagar, in 1978

Due to mass migration in 1990, the Petitioner abandoned the unit, which was subsequently damaged by fire in 1991

In 1996, the State re-allotted Shed No. 5 to Respondent No. 6.

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

The Respondents purportedly complied by allotting two sheds at Industrial Estate, Rangret, but demanded a premium of ₹15,000 and significantly higher rent compared to the original allotment

While contempt proceedings regarding the adequacy of this compliance were pending, the Respondents issued Order No. IDC/B/2004/73 on 06.04.2004, cancelling the Rangret allotment due to the Petitioner's failure to pay the premium and execute the lease deed

1. Whether the State's cancellation of the alternate allotment at Rangret was legally and equitably sustainable given the Petitioner’s status as a forced migrant

2. Whether the State fulfilled its obligation to protect and preserve the property rights of a migrant during civil turmoil

The Court applied the Principles of Natural Justice, holding that administrative actions must account for the safety and security constraints of individuals during civil unrest.

It invoked the Doctrine of State Responsibility, asserting that the State and its instrumentalities have a solemn obligation to protect and preserve the property of displaced persons (migrants) rather than treating their absence as an opportunity for exploitation

the court applied the principle of Equitable Restitution, ensuring that a displaced person is restored to a position similar to their original status without being penalized by new financial burdens like premiums or retrospective arrears

The Court observed that the Respondents acted as a "predator" rather than a "protector" of the migrant's property by re-allotting the Petitioner's original shed to a third party during the migration period

It found the "compliance" of providing alternate sheds at Rangret to be a "mirage" and "eyewash" because the Respondents treated the Petitioner as a new applicant, demanding premiums and higher rent instead of honoring the terms of the original 1978 allotment

The Court emphasized that expecting a migrant to return to the valley to finalize industrial formalities when their personal safety was not guaranteed was a violation of natural justice

The Court concluded that the cancellation order was unfair and inequitable, as the Petitioner was subjected to administrative hostility for circumstances beyond his control

The Court directed the official respondents to: 1. Allot two sheds at Industrial Estate, Rangret (or similar vacant ones) to the Petitioner

2. Dispense with the requirement of paying any premium for the said allotment

3. Charge rent at the prevalent rate prospectively from the date of actual possession, without insisting on any arrears