State must protect migrant property and cannot cancel allotments for abandonment caused by forced migration.

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

Due to the mass migration of 1989-1990, the proprietor fled to Jammu, and the unit was abandoned

In 1991, the unit suffered fire damage

Subsequently, the State re-allotted the petitioner’s shed to Respondent No. 6. In a previous litigation (OWP No. 488/1996), the High Court directed the State to either provide a similar shed or restore Shed No. 5 to the petitioner

In purported compliance, the State offered two sheds at Rangreth but demanded a premium and significantly higher rent

While the petitioner challenged these terms via contempt petitions, the respondents issued Order No. IDC/B/2004/73 on 06.04.2004, cancelling the Rangreth allotment on the grounds that the petitioner failed to complete formalities and lacked interest in the unit

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition to quash the cancellation and seek restoration of the original premises

1. Whether the State's action of cancelling the allotment of industrial sheds at Rangreth was legally and equitably sustainable given the petitioner’s status as a forced migrant?

2. Whether the official respondents violated the principles of natural justice and their obligation as a "protector" of migrant property by imposing new financial burdens and cancelling allotments during the pendency of contempt proceedings?

The court applied the Principles of Natural Justice, which mandate that a party must be heard before their vested rights are prejudiced, especially when circumstances like regional turmoil prevent compliance with standard administrative procedures

It further invoked the Doctrine of State Responsibility, establishing that the State and its instrumentalities have a solemn obligation to protect and preserve the property of citizens forced into migration for safety

The court also applied the Principle of Equity, noting that the State must act fairly and not exploit the absence of a displaced person to their detriment

The court observed that the petitioner was forced to abandon his industrial unit due to a "historic mass migration" for the safety of life and limb

It reasoned that the respondents "played upon the misery" of the petitioner by treating a displaced person as a new allottee rather than an original one whose rights needed restoration

The court found it "unfair and inequitable" to demand a premium and higher rent for the alternate Rangreth site when the original site (Shed No. 5) had been held under significantly lower rates

The court criticized the State for acting as a "predator" instead of a "protector" of migrant property

Furthermore, the court held that the rules of natural justice were "thrown to the winds" because the State expected the petitioner to restore industrial activity in Srinagar during a period of extreme turmoil when his personal safety was not secured

Consequently, the cancellation of the Rangreth sheds for "failure to complete formalities" was deemed a perversion of justice

The court held that the petitioner had been subjected to unfair treatment and was entitled to the restoration of his rights, adjusted for current equities

The court directed the official respondents to allot two sheds at the Industrial Estate, Rangreth, to the petitioner

If the previously identified sheds were unavailable, new ones must be provided without charging any premium

The court further ordered that the rent should be at the prevalent rate but must be prospective, effective only from the date the petitioner takes actual possession, without any insistence on arrears

The petition was disposed of with these directions to restore justice to the petitioner