Allotment Of Land Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Due To Unauthorised Construction Raised Over It: J&K And Ladakh High Court
The High Court held that raising an unauthorised construction over allotted land does not ipso facto render the allotment invalid, and that such an alleged violation must be addressed under the relevant statutory provisions rather than by cancelling the allotment itself.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a government order cancelling the allotment of land made in favour of a retired army officer, holding that cancellation of allotment cannot be justified merely on the ground that unauthorised or commercial construction has been raised on the allotted land.
The Court was dealing with a batch of writ petitions and a connected contempt petition challenging the Government Order, by which the allotment of land was cancelled ab initio.
The matters were decided by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, who upon examining the rival contentions, held: “allotment of land cannot be expected to be cancelled merely because an unauthorized construction has been raised over it as that would not ipso facto render the allotment invalid, the factum of unauthorized construction could have very well been ascertained and taken care of by invoking the relevant provisions of law, but cancellation of allotment of land by no stretch of imagination was ever available to the respondents.”
Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi appeared for the petitioners, while the State was represented by Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General.
Background
The dispute had its genesis in the acquisition of land during the rule of the then Maharaja of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir. Despite a decision taken as early as 1954 to provide alternative land and compensation, the matter remained unresolved for decades, leading to prolonged litigation.
In terms of a Division Bench judgment, the State was directed either to allot land in lieu of the acquired land or, if that was not possible, to pay just compensation. Subsequent contempt proceedings resulted in further directions to implement the judgment by allotting land.
In compliance, the State issued a Government, followed by corrigenda, ultimately allotting One Kanal of land to the petitioner. Possession of the land was handed over, and proprietary rights were granted. Portions of the land were thereafter sold by the allottee to third parties through registered sale deeds.
Subsequently, by another Government Order, the allotment was cancelled because the allotted land was allegedly of higher commercial value than the acquired land, and the allottee had raised unauthorised commercial construction on the land.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the reasons cited for cancellation of the allotment and found them unsustainable. The Court noted that the allotment had been made in implementation of binding judicial directions and had remained in operation for several months, during which possession was handed over and third-party rights were created.
Rejecting the contention that the allotment could be cancelled because the allotted land allegedly carried a higher market value, the Court observed that the respondents themselves had allowed the allotment to subsist and acted upon it. The Court further noted that records obtained under the Right to Information Act indicated that the acquired land was, in fact, of higher fiscal value than the allotted land.
On the allegation of misuse of land by raising unauthorised commercial construction, the Court held that the allotment of land cannot be expected to be cancelled merely because an unauthorised construction has been raised over it, as that would not ipso facto render the allotment invalid.
The Court observed that if there was unauthorised construction, the authorities were required to invoke the relevant provisions of law to deal with such construction, but cancellation of the allotment was not a permissible course of action.
Significantly, the Court took note of the legal opinion rendered by the Advocate General, which had categorically advised that the cancellation order was improper, unsupported by cogent reasons, and unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.
The High Court described the impugned order as an attempt to justify an action unsupported by statutory authority, logic, or rationality, and observed that it was issued in disregard of repeated judicial directions passed in contempt proceedings.
Conclusion
Holding that the grounds cited by the respondents did not justify cancellation of the allotment, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the Government Order which cancelled the allotment.
Cause Title: Lt. Col. Daljit Singh Dogra v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:JKLHC-JMU:4559)
Appearances
Petitioners: Sunil Sethi, Senior Advocate, with Rahil Raja, Ankesh Chandel, Advocates
Respondents: Monika Kohli, Senior AAG, with Chetna Manhas, Suneel Sethi, Atul Verma, Advocates
