State must protect migrant properties and cannot cancel industrial allotments due to forced displacement.

The petitioner, a registered small-scale industrial unit owned by a Kashmiri Pandit (Sh. K. L. Ambardar), was allotted Shed No. 5 at the Bagh-i-Ali Mardan Khan Industrial Area, Srinagar, in 1978.

Due to the mass migration of Kashmiri Pandits in 1989, the petitioner was forced to abandon the unit and migrate to Jammu.

In 1991, the shed was damaged by fire.

In 1996, the State re-allotted the petitioner’s shed to Respondent No. 6.

The petitioner successfully challenged this in OWP No. 488/1996, where the court directed the State to either allot a similar shed or restore Shed No. 5.

In purported compliance, the State offered two sheds at Rangret but imposed high premiums and significantly higher rents.

While contempt proceedings were pending, the State issued Order No. IDC/B/2004/73 on 06.04.2004, cancelling the Rangret allotment on the grounds that the petitioner failed to complete formalities and lacked interest.

The petitioner filed the present writ seeking to quash the cancellation and recover possession of the original site.

1. Whether the State's action of re-allotting the petitioner’s original industrial site during his forced absence as a migrant was legally and ethically sustainable.

2. Whether the cancellation of the alternate allotment (Rangret) for non-compliance with new, more onerous financial terms was a violation of the principles of natural justice and equity.

The court applied the Rules of Natural Justice, holding that vested rights and entitlements cannot be prejudiced without considering the extraordinary circumstances (turmoil/migration) that prevented the exercise of those rights.

It invoked the Doctrine of State as a Protector, asserting that the State has a solemn obligation and responsibility to preserve and protect the property of citizens forced to flee due to safety concerns, rather than acting as a "predator" of such assets.

The court applied the Principle of Equity, seeking to balance the interests of the parties in light of the passage of time and changed circumstances.

The court reasoned that the State failed in its primary duty to protect the property of Kashmiri migrants.

Instead of preserving the petitioner’s leasehold interest in Shed No. 5, the official respondents exploited the proprietor's absence to re-allot the land to a third party.

The court found that the alternate allotment at Rangret was a "mirage" because the State treated the petitioner as a new allottee—imposing premiums and high rents—rather than recognizing his status as a displaced original allottee whose terms should have remained consistent with his 1978 lease.

Furthermore, the court held that the State’s conclusion that the petitioner was "uninterested" in the unit was flawed, as it was impossible for a person from the Kashmiri Pandit community to safely restore industrial activity during the peak of the turmoil.

Consequently, the court found the State’s actions to be unfair, inequitable, and a violation of natural justice.

The court directed the official respondents to carry forward the allotment of two sheds at the Industrial Estate, Rangret, in favor of the petitioner.

If the previously offered sheds are unavailable, the State must provide new ones.

Significantly, the court ordered that no premium shall be charged for these sheds and the rent must be prospective (starting from the date of possession) without insisting on any arrears.

The petition was disposed of with these directions to restore justice by adjusting the equities of the changed time.