State’s re-allotment of migrant property during forced absence is predatory and violates its protective obligation.

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

Following the mass migration of Kashmiri Pandits in 1989, the petitioner migrated to Jammu, leading to the abandonment of the unit

In 1991, the shed was damaged by fire, and the state subsequently re-allotted the site to Respondent No. 6

The petitioner successfully challenged this in OWP No. 488/1996, where the court directed the state to provide a similar shed or restore the original

In purported compliance, the respondents offered alternate sheds at Rangreth but demanded a premium and significantly higher rent compared to the original allotment

After several rounds of litigation and contempt petitions, the respondents issued Order No. IDC/B/2004/73 on 06.04.2004, cancelling the alternate allotment on the grounds that the petitioner failed to complete formalities and take possession

The petitioner challenged this cancellation as an "eyewash" and a violation of his rights as a migrant

1. Whether the state's action in cancelling the petitioner's allotment and imposing new, more onerous financial terms was legally and equitably sustainable

2. Whether the state failed in its obligation to protect the property interests of a displaced Kashmiri migrant

The court applied the constitutional principles of equity, fairness, and reasonableness in state action.

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically that the state must not act arbitrarily in prejudice of vested claims

State serves as a protector of the property of its citizens, particularly those displaced by turmoil, and that administrative actions must account for the force of circumstances—such as mass migration—rendering certain compliance (like maintaining industrial activity) impossible

The court found that the official respondents "played upon the misery" of the petitioner

The state, instead of acting as a "protector" of the property left behind by a migrant, acted as a "predator" by cancelling the original lease and re-allotting it to a third party

The court criticized the respondents for treating the petitioner as a "new allottee" in the alternate site at Rangreth, rather than an "original allottee" entitled to the same terms and conditions as the original Shed No. 5

The rules of natural justice were "thrown to the winds" because the respondents expected the petitioner to return to Kashmir and restore industrial activity at a time when the safety of his community was not secured

The cancellation of the alternate allotment was deemed a perversion of justice and an unfair treatment of a displaced person

The court directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with two sheds at the Industrial Estate, Rangreth (or new ones if unavailable), without charging any premium

The court ordered that rent should be charged at the prevalent rate but only prospectively from the date the petitioner enters into actual use and occupation, specifically waiving any insistence on arrears

The petition was disposed of with a mandate to restore justice by adjusting the equities of the changed circumstances