J&K&L High Court Quashes Cancellation Of Land Allotted Under Erstwhile Princely-Era Law

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed a government order cancelling the allotment of alternative land granted to a landowner in lieu of land acquired during the erstwhile princely rule, holding that the cancellation was arbitrary, legally untenable, and unsupported by record or statutory authority.

A bench of Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi set aside Government Order observing that the State's action amounted to a “brazen endeavour of the official machinery to deprive a land owner of his legitimate right”.

The dispute related to the cancellation of allotment of 1 kanal of land at Rakh Bahu, Jammu, which had been allotted to the petitioner in lieu of land acquired by the State on the orders of the then Monarch of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir.

The allotment was initially made in February 2016, modified in October 2017, possession was handed over, and the land was subsequently sold by the allottee through registered sale deeds. The cancellation order was issued thereafter in February 2018.

The State sought to justify the cancellation on two grounds That the allotted land had higher commercial value than the acquired land; and

That the petitioner had raised commercial construction, allegedly defeating the object of rehabilitation.

The Court noted that the allotment had remained operative for a considerable period and possession had already been delivered. It relied heavily on the legal opinion of the then Advocate General, which was part of the official record. The opinion categorically stated:

“The order of cancellation would not stand the test of scrutiny in the court of law, more so the reasons for cancellation are neither cogent nor sufficient.”

The Advocate General had further advised “Government Order No. 50-HUD of 2018 dated 16.02.2018 needs to be withdrawn and the position as it stood before issuance of the same should be accepted.”

Rejecting the State's claim that the allotted land was more valuable, the Court held that official records obtained under the RTI Act themselves showed that the acquired land had higher fiscal value. It ruled:

“The ground of the allotted land being superior to the acquired land… loses significance and is turned down accordingly.”

On the allegation of unauthorized commercial construction, the Court made it clear that even assuming such construction existed, cancellation of allotment was not a legally permissible consequence:

“The allotment of land cannot be expected to be cancelled merely because an unauthorized construction has been raised over it.”

The Court added that any such violation could only be addressed under relevant statutory provisions, not by cancelling the allotment itself.

In a sharp rebuke, the Court observed “The authority, through bureaucratic alchemy, has attempted to justify an order unsupported by any statutory provision, logic, or rationality.”

It further held that the action was taken in violation of court directions and by completely overlooking the legal advice tendered by the learned Advocate General.

Case-Title: Lt. Col. Daljit Singh Dogra vs State of J&K, 2025

Click Here to Read/Download Order