State Must Protect Migrant Property; Cancellation of Allotments During Forced Absence Violates Natural Justice

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

Following the mass migration of 1989, the proprietor moved to Jammu for safety, leading to the abandonment of the unit

In 1991, a fire damaged the premises

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 provide a similar shed or restore Shed No. 5

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

While contempt proceedings were pending regarding the terms of this new allotment, the State issued an order on 06.04.2004 cancelling the Rangreth allotment, alleging the petitioner failed to complete formalities

The petitioner then filed the present writ petition to quash the cancellation and seek restoration of the original premises

The Court applied the principles of Natural Justice, which prohibit the State from prejudicing vested claims without due regard to the circumstances preventing compliance

It further invoked the doctrine of State Responsibility, asserting that the State and its instrumentalities have a solemn obligation to protect and preserve the leasehold estates of Kashmiri migrants forced to flee for safety

The Court emphasized the equitable principle that the State must act as a "protector" rather than a "predator" of property belonging to vulnerable citizens displaced by turmoil

The Court observed that the respondents exploited the petitioner’s forced migration, treating his absence as an opportunity to re-allot his property to a third party

It characterized the State’s offer of alternate sheds at Rangreth as a "mirage" and "lip service" because the State imposed new, onerous financial conditions (higher rent and premiums) instead of honoring the original lease terms

The Court found the State’s conduct to be "unfair and inequitable," noting that it was irrational to expect a migrant to return to a conflict zone to restore industrial activity when their personal safety was not guaranteed

By cancelling the allotment while the petitioner was seeking legal recourse through contempt petitions, the State ignored the "turmoil time" context and violated the rules of natural justice

The Court held that the State cannot charge any premium for this allotment

Furthermore, while the rent may be set at the prevalent rate, it must be applied prospectively from the date the petitioner takes actual possession, with no insistence on arrears for the intervening period

The Court concluded that such a direction was necessary to restore justice while adjusting the equities of the changed circumstances