Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Reserved On :18.09.2025 vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 4 March, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
2026:JKLHC-SGR:40-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Case No. LPA No. 75/2024 in
OWP No. 502/2009
Reserved on :18.09.2025
Pronounced on :04.03.2026
Uploaded on : 04.03.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced
Mehraj-ud-Din Peer and Ors.
....Petitioner/Appellant
Through:- Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Advocate,
V/s
UT of J&K and Ors.
.....Respondent(s)
Through:-Mr. Jahingeer Ahmad Dar, GA
CORAM:HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
PER: SINDHU SHARMA-J
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2024 passed by
this Court in OWP No. 502/2009, whereby the writ petition
preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed.
2. The appellants are longstanding shopkeepers who had
been carrying on their business for several decades in front
LPA No. 75 of 2024 Page 1 of 10
2026:JKLHC-SGR:40-DB
of the premises of the Irrigation and Flood Control
Department, Sopore. During the process of road widening
undertaken by the Town Area Committee, Sopore, the shops
of the appellants were demolished, resulting in deprivation
of their means of livelihood.
3. Consequent upon the demolition of their shops, the
appellants made repeated representations before the
concerned authorities seeking allotment of alternative land
for rehabilitation. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir,
vide Government Order dated 31.12.2004 and Cabinet
Decision No. 210/11 dated 30.12.2004, sanctioned
allotment of land belonging to the Irrigation and Flood
Control Department, Sopore, in favour of the dislocated
shopkeepers, including the appellants, subject to certain
terms and conditions.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government orders, the
appellants raised construction of shops at their own cost
and deposited the requisite building permission fee with the
Municipal Council, Sopore.
5. For the purpose of fixation of rent of the newly
constructed shops, the Superintending Engineer, Hydraulic
Circle, Sopore, constituted a Rent Assessment Committee
vide letter dated 12.02.2005, directing it to fix rent on the
LPA No. 75 of 2024 Page 2 of 10
2026:JKLHC-SGR:40-DB
basis of prevailing market rates with a reasonable increase
after every five years.
6. The grievance of the appellants is that the Rent
Assessment Committee acted arbitrarily and in violation of
the mandate issued to it. It is contended that the appellants
were not afforded an opportunity of participation in the
assessment process and that the Committee fixed the rent at
the rate of Rs. 10/- per square foot per month i.e. with a
20% enhancement after every five years, which was
substantially higher than the rent being paid by other
shopkeepers in the same locality. The appellants further
contend that rent agreements executed by other
shopkeepers with the Municipal Council, reflecting much
lower rates, were placed on record but were not considered.
7. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the appellants
approached this Court by filing OWP No. 589/2006 and
thereafter OWP No. 502/2009, challenging the rent fixation
as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of
natural justice on the ground that no opportunity of hearing
was afforded to them.
8. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, this
Court, vide order dated 31.03.2021, directed the appellants
to deposit rent at the undisputed rate of Rs. 5/- per square
foot per month till final adjudication. The appellants
LPA No. 75 of 2024 Page 3 of 10
2026:JKLHC-SGR:40-DB
complied with the said direction and furnished affidavits
undertaking to abide by the final outcome of the case.The
writ petition bearing OWP No. 589/2006 was dismissed on
21.07.2008 by holding as under: –
“….The petitioners have not challenged the findings of
the Rent Assessment Committee as such the rent
fixed by them cannot now be disputed by the
petitioners. No substantial ground has been raised by
the petitioners to show how the rent fixed by the Rent
Assessment Committee is not proper and is not
equivalent to the prevalent market rate.
The petitioners cannot claim parity with other
shopkeepers as they have got the shops under a
Government Order and the petitioners being
beneficiaries of the order are bound by the terms and
conditions of the said order.
In the circumstances, I do not find any force in the
present petition, which is hereby dismissed.”
9. The appellants have challenged the constitution of rent
assessment committee made vide order dated 12.02.2005
and its findings dated 16.07.2005, with a direction to
reconstitute them again in OWP No. 502/2009. This petition
has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated
21.02.2024 on the ground that the petitioners have
undertaken to pay the rent in respect of the allotted shops at
the market value to be assessed by the Rent Assessment
Committee and which was already subject matter of
litigation and, therefore, it cannot be reagitated.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
despite such compliance, the writ petition was dismissed
LPA No. 75 of 2024 Page 4 of 10
2026:JKLHC-SGR:40-DB
vide judgment dated 21.02.2024 on the ground that the
issues raised had already been adjudicated in earlier
proceedings and could not be re-agitated, and that repeated
litigation on the same cause amounted to abuse of the
process of law.
11. Subsequent thereto, the respondents issued notices to
the appellants for clearance of balance rent in accordance
with the fixation made by the Rent Assessment Committee
at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square foot per month with a 20%
enhancement every five years, with a clarification that the
amount already deposited would be adjusted.
12. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment
in the present appeal, contending that the Rent Assessment
Committee acted arbitrarily, failed to consider relevant
material including prevailing market rents, and violated the
principles of natural justice by denying them an opportunity
of being heard.
13. The appellants further contend that the rent fixation is
discriminatory inasmuch as similarly situated shopkeepers
were charged lower rent, and that the learned Single Judge
failed to consider these aspects, resulting in grave
miscarriage of justice.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the allotment and rent fixation were made
LPA No. 75 of 2024 Page 5 of 10
2026:JKLHC-SGR:40-DB
strictly in accordance with the Government orders and the
terms and conditions governing the allotment, and that the
appellants are attempting to reopen issues already settled by
this Court.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
16. With regard to the principal contention raised by the
appellants that the rent fixed by the Rent Assessment
Committee is excessive, we find no infirmity in the view
taken by the learned Single Judge. It is an admitted position
that sanction was accorded to the allotment of land to the
appellants vide Govt. Order No. 495-PW(Hyd) of 2004 dated
31.12.2004 on the following terms and conditions: –
i. Permission of the TAC Sopore is obtained for
construction of these shops on the identified land.
ii. That the shops, which will be constructed by twenty
(20) shopkeepers at their own cost will be the
property of Irrigation Division Sopore and the shops
will be allotted to these dislocated shopkeepers on
rent basis.
iii. That the 20 shops will be constructed of equal size
measuring 9’x12′ or less. Keeping in view the
availability of land and the shops sites will be
LPA No. 75 of 2024 Page 6 of 10
2026:JKLHC-SGR:40-DB
allotted to these dislocated shopkeepers by lots and
not on pick and choose basis.
iv. That these shopkeepers will have to execute an
agreement with the Department for payment of rent
as per prevalent market rate of the town concerned
with a reasonable increase after every five years.
17. Pursuant to the order of allotment and after taking
possession of the shops, the appellants executed affidavits
categorically undertaking that they shall pay rent as per the
prevailing market rate of the town, which was to be assessed
by the Rent Assessment Committee, with a reasonable
enhancement after every five years. The appellants further
undertook to abide by the rent so assessed.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Rajasthan
State I.D.I.Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Diamond & Gem Dev.
Corpn. Ltd. & Anr, (2013) 5 SCC 470 has observed as
under:-
“A party cannot be permitted to “blow hot-blow cold”, “fast
and loose” or “approbate and reprobate”. Where one
knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or
conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying
the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or
conveyance, or order upon himself. This rule is applied to
ensure equity, however, it must not be applied in such a
manner, so as to violate the principles of, what is right
and, of good conscience.
19. Having voluntarily furnished such undertakings and
having accepted the allotment subject to the said terms and
LPA No. 75 of 2024 Page 7 of 10
2026:JKLHC-SGR:40-DB
conditions, the appellants cannot now be permitted to turn
around and resile from their own commitments. The
doctrine of estoppel squarely applies, and the appellants are
bound by the undertakings furnished by them.
20. As regards the contention of the appellants that the
rent fixation is discriminatory on the ground that similarly
situated shopkeepers are being charged a lower rate of rent,
the learned Writ Court has rightly rejected the said plea. The
plea of discrimination is equally untenable.The Tehsildar
Sopore had intimated that shop structure is in the prime
location of Sopore town and the prevailing cost of shop
location is Rs. 10 lacs per kanal. The record demonstrates
that Rent Assessment Committee relied upon the report
dated 29.06.2005 submitted by the Executive Engineer,
Municipal Council, Sopore, which clearly distinguished
between commercial value of shops located on Kupwara
Road and those on Nowpora Road.Shops on Kupwara Road
were assessed at Rs. 5/- per sq.ft per month, whereas shops
on Nowpora Road where the appellants’ shops are situated
were assessed at Rs. 10/- per sq.ft. per month.
21. It is not disputed that the shops allotted to the
appellants are located on Nowpora Road. Therefore, the
appellants cannot claim parity with shopkeepers situated in
a different locality having distinct commercial potential.
LPA No. 75 of 2024 Page 8 of 10
2026:JKLHC-SGR:40-DB
Differential rent fixation based on location, commercial
value, and market conditions does not amount to hostile
discrimination and is a well-recognised principle in law.
22. The appellants contended that they were not afforded
an opportunity of being heard by the Rent Assessment
Committee. This argument, though attractive at first
instance, does not withstand legal scrutiny.
23. The rent fixation was carried out pursuant to a policy
decision and contractual terms accepted by the appellants
themselves. The assessment was based on objective market
parameters, location, and reports of competent authorities.
The appellants have failed to establish any real prejudice
caused to them due to the alleged absence of hearing,
particularly when they had undertaken to accept the rent as
determined by the Committee.
24. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the
appellants were attempting to re-agitate issues which had
already been considered in earlier proceedings. Such
repeated challenges undermine judicial discipline and
amount to abuse of the process of law.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in
the present Letters Patent Appeal. The appellants, having
accepted the allotment of land and having executed
undertakings to pay rent as determined by the Rent
LPA No. 75 of 2024 Page 9 of 10
2026:JKLHC-SGR:40-DB
Assessment Committee on the basis of prevailing market
rates, are estopped from challenging the same at this stage.
The plea of violation of principles of natural justice or
discrimination is devoid of substance, particularly when the
rent has been fixed based on objective criteria, location-
specific market valuation, and in accordance with the
Government orders governing the allotment.
26. We find no legal infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional
error in the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2024
warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction, as such,
the appeal is dismissed.
( Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
04.03.2026
Bir
Whether approved for reporting: Yes/No
Whether approved for speaking: Yes/No
LPA No. 75 of 2024 Page 10 of 10