'State Acted As Predator': J&K&L High Court Orders Industrial Sheds For Kashmiri Pandit Migrant Without Premium Or Arrears

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a Kashmiri Pandit proprietor of an industrial unit seeking restoration of possession of the industrial shed, which had been allotted to another individual.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti, while examining the conduct of the authorities in allotting the shed to another person after the migration, observed: “… The State, instead of acting as a protector of the property of the petitioner acted as a predator and that is where this Court finds that the petitioner was subjected to an unfair and inequitable treatment at the end of the official respondents for which justice is due to be restored and done to the cause and claim of the petitioner but by adjusting the equities of the changed time”.

The petitioner was a registered small-scale industrial unit which had been allotted a Shed at Bagh-i-Ali Mardan Khan Industrial Area, Srinagar. The industrial activity commenced before migration, but was discontinued when the proprietor migrated from Kashmir to Jammu during the period of disturbance.

The record further showed that the said industrial shed was subsequently allotted to another entity, leading to earlier litigation wherein directions had been issued for allotment of a similar shed to the petitioner.

Pursuant to such directions, allotment of alternate sheds at Industrial Estate, Rangret was made. However, the petitioner was required to pay a premium and enhanced rent, which led to further proceedings and ultimately to cancellation of the allotment on the ground of non-compliance with the terms.

The Court, upon examining the entire sequence of events, recorded that the petitioner's industrial unit suffered abandonment due to migration and that the respondents had proceeded to re-allot the original shed and impose fresh terms for alternate allotment.

The Court held that the State “actually played upon the misery of the proprietor of the petitioner who by force of circumstances was constrained to migrate from Kashmir to Jammu for safety of life and limb, while being holder of property”.

The Court further added that the property “was always meant to be protected and preserved for the benefit of none else than the petitioner's proprietor and his next ones and for none else and that was the least solemn obligation and responsibility of the State and its instrumentalities and Departments, but instead the absence of the petitioner's proprietor was taken to be a matter of exploit by ordering the cancellation of the industrial Shed”.

“Without bothering an eyelid at the end of the official respondents that a Kashmiri migrant has escaped from Kashmir for the safety of his life and limb with his industrial unit left behind, which required to be protected rather than perverted, and this is where the injustice against the petitioner set in”, Justice Bharti remarked.

The Court found that the petitioner was subjected to inequitable treatment by being treated as a fresh allottee for alternate allotment, instead of recognising his original allotment and applying the same terms and conditions.

The Court further observed that the rules of natural justice were not adhered to while cancelling the allotment and re-allotting the shed, noting that “in the turmoil time it could not have been expected from the end of the petitioner by the official respondents to come back to Kashmir for the purpose of restoring the industrial activity when the very safety and security of a person of Kashmiri community was far from being secured at the relevant point of time and that aspect should have never been missed out from its mind by the State.”

On the cumulative assessment of the record, the Court held that the petitioner was subjected to unfair and inequitable treatment and that the equities required to be adjusted in light of the changed circumstances.

The Bench, accordingly, directed the state to “carry forward the allotment of two sheds at Industrial Estate, Rangret in favour of the petitioner, if the same are very much available and vacant to be extended to the petitioner for its use and occupation and if the same are not available then new ones but without charging any premium for the allotment of the same but at the rate of rent prevalent to be prescribed that too without insisting for any arrears but only for the prospective time reckoning from the entry of the petitioner in use and occupation of the two sheds at Industrial Estate, Rangret”.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of

Case Title: M/s Sports Goods Industry v. State of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment