The Court observed that administrative authorities are expected to proceed on the basis of official records available before them and such action cannot be faulted merely because third parties later claim rights over the property.

Dismissing a writ petition challenging a demolition communication issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Leh, the Court held that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked in the abstract and the requirement of notice has to be examined with reference to the person against whom the authority was legally required to proceed.

“….The requirement of notice has to be examined in the context of the person against whom the authority was legally required to proceed. Once the competent authority proceeded against the person who stood reflected in the official records as the registered proprietor of the establishment, the petitioners cannot successfully complain of violation of the principles of natural justice merely because no independent notice was issued to them”, the court emphasised.

A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by the former directors of a struck-off company challenging the demolition of a tourist resort known as "The Last Resort" situated at Palam, Spituk, Leh.

The petitioners claimed that while carrying on business in the tourism sector in the Union Territory of Ladakh, they had entered into arrangements with the private respondents in respect of land situated at Palam, Spituk, where they established a tourist resort under the name "The Last Resort."

According to them, substantial investments were made in developing the resort by raising temporary structures and creating facilities for tourists. They further asserted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the premises were requisitioned by the District Administration and utilised as a COVID Isolation Centre.

The controversy arose after the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Leh, issued a communication dated 17 May 2022 directing removal of the alleged encroachment from State land. The petitioners challenged the action primarily on the ground that no notice had been served upon them before the demolition proceedings were initiated, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Initially, several ancillary reliefs, including compensation, alternate land and restoration of business, were sought. However, during the hearing, the petitioners confined the writ petition solely to the challenge against the demolition communication.

The official respondents opposed the petition, contending that the land was State land and that the resort stood registered in the name of respondent No. 14, Tsering Angchok, both in the records of the Tourism Department and the Power Development Department. It was further submitted that the electricity connection also stood in his name and, therefore, notices preceding the demolition action were issued to him before removal of the encroachment was undertaken.

The private respondents also questioned the maintainability of the petition, contending that the company through which the petitioners claimed to have carried on business had already been struck off from the Register of Companies and that the dispute essentially involved contested questions relating to title, possession and contractual arrangements, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court's Observations:

The Court observed that once the petitioners had restricted their challenge only to the demolition communication, the sole question before the Court was whether the authorities were under a legal obligation to issue notice to the petitioners before initiating demolition proceedings.

Examining the record, the Court found that before issuing the impugned communication, the authorities had verified the official records maintained by the Tourism Department and the Power Development Department. Those records consistently reflected respondent No. 14 as the registered proprietor of the resort, and the electricity connection also stood in his name.

The Court noted that acting upon these contemporaneous official records, the competent authority proceeded against respondent No. 14 and issued the notice contemplated under law before initiating demolition proceedings.

The Bench further found that the petitioners had failed to place on record any official document demonstrating that, on the date the demolition communication was issued, they were recognised by any statutory authority as owners, proprietors, lessees or occupiers of the establishment. The Court observed,

"In the absence of any such material, this Court finds no infirmity in the action of the respondents in proceeding against the person who stood reflected in the official records as the proprietor of the resort."

Rejecting the plea founded on violation of natural justice, Justice Nargal held that the authorities were entitled to rely upon official records and were under no obligation to issue notice to persons whose names did not appear therein. The Court observed,

"The administrative authorities are expected to proceed on the basis of the official records available before them and the action so taken cannot be faulted merely because third parties subsequently assert independent private claims in respect of the property."

Emphasising that natural justice cannot be applied mechanically, the Court further observed,

"The principles of natural justice are not to be applied in the abstract. The requirement of notice has to be examined in the context of the person against whom the authority was legally required to proceed."

The Court held that once the competent authority had proceeded against the person reflected in the official records as the registered proprietor, the petitioners could not legitimately complain that separate notice ought to have been issued to them.

The Bench further clarified that the petitioners' alleged investments, possession of the property or private arrangements with the landowners could not establish that the official respondents acted arbitrarily. At best, such claims might give rise to independent civil or contractual remedies, but they did not invalidate the administrative action taken on the basis of official records, the court held.

In view of these observations the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the impugned demolition communication.

Case Title: Kunzang Dolma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment