Authorities Cannot Evict Tenants By Declaring Building 'Unsafe' In Order To Bypass Due Process: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that authorities cannot adopt indirect methods, such as declaring a building unsafe, to evict tenants, emphasizing that lawful procedures like filing a civil suit for ejectment cannot be bypassed through administrative manoeuvres.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held that a “different mechanism” cannot be adopted to achieve a “nefarious design” of eviction by avoiding the legally prescribed remedy of instituting civil proceedings. Such action, the Court noted, was arbitrary and contrary to the rule of law.

The case arose from a challenge to an order dated 26.07.2025, whereby the respondents had effectively sought to dispossess the petitioners from their shops by relying on a declaration that the building was unsafe. The petitioners contended that such action was a colourable exercise of power intended to circumvent the due process of law.

The Court, upon examining the record, found that a committee of engineers had earlier conducted a detailed structural assessment pursuant to directions issued by the Court.

The said report, prepared in the presence of the Additional District Magistrate, Jammu, had evaluated each portion of the building and declared several parts—including shops occupied by the petitioners, as structurally safe. The report had neither been challenged nor set aside and thus continued to hold the field.

The Court observed that despite the existence of this binding report, the respondents proceeded to reopen the issue and declare the building unsafe, which amounted to acting in derogation of the Court's earlier directions. It held that such conduct was beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities and constituted an attempt to overreach the judicial process.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order as being legally unsustainable.

In terms of relief, the Court directed that the petitioners be allowed to resume possession of those shops which had been declared safe by the engineering report, enabling them to continue their business activities. With regard to one shop requiring structural rectification, the concerned authorities were directed to undertake necessary repairs in accordance with technical recommendations.

Taking serious note of the circumstances leading to the issuance of the “unsafe” report, the Court further directed the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to constitute an independent inquiry committee to examine whether there was any collusion, mala fide intent, or procedural irregularity involved.

The Court ordered that the inquiry be completed within a stipulated timeframe and its report be placed before the Court.

Significantly, the Court also provided for imposition of personal costs on erring officers, directing that if any officer is found responsible for issuing or facilitating a misleading report, such officer shall be liable to compensate the petitioners for loss of income, harassment, and litigation expenses. The costs were directed to be recovered from the salaries of the concerned officers.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of, while the connected contempt proceedings were also closed.

Case-Title: Anoop Uppal & Ors. Vs Jammu Municipal Corp. & Ors. 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order