In a pivotal judgment, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh rejected an appeal by M/S M.R. Industries, reiterating that unauthorized land occupation does not bestow any legal rights. The court emphasized that possession without a valid rental, lease, or license agreement cannot warrant legal protection.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, delivering the ruling, remarked:
“If a person has been allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously, he does not acquire any title over the property, and the Courts would not be justified in protecting the possession of any person who was allowed to occupy the premises for some time gratuitously. The protection can only be granted or extended to a person who has a valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement, or license agreement in his favour.”
Case Background
The dispute involved M/S M.R. Industries’ occupation of an additional plot adjacent to its officially leased land within the Industrial Estate in Srinagar. The appellant argued that State authorities had implicitly allowed its use of the plot for two years, during which it claimed to have paid ground rent. However, when formal allotment was sought, the request was denied, with authorities labeling the plot as migrant property and accusing the appellant of encroachment.
After the trial court denied its request for a temporary injunction, the appellant sought relief from the High Court, asserting “settled possession” and contending that eviction could only occur through due process under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act.
Respondents’ Stand
The respondents countered that no formal allotment had ever been made to the appellant, and its occupation of the land amounted to unauthorized encroachment. They clarified that the land belonged to a third party, a migrant, and thus was not under State authority for allocation.
Supreme Court Precedent
Justice Dhar referenced the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (2012), which stated:
“A person holding a premises gratuitously and whose initial entry in the premises is questionable, would not acquire any right or interest in the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequence.”
Court’s Decision
The court observed that M/S M.R. Industries admitted to occupying the land with permission but without formal allotment, a fact that undermined its claim of settled possession. As the plot belonged to a third party, no legal right or interest could be established in favor of the appellant.
In its conclusion, the court ruled:
“There is no legal right or interest created in favour of the plaintiff in this case, so as to entitle him to remain in possession of the suit land. Thus, there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. For this reason alone, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to grant of interim injunction.”
Case: M/S M. R. Industries vs State of J&K and Ors. – Available on LAWFYI.IO
