Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Neelam Daluja And Anr vs U.T. Of J&K And Ors on 13 July, 2026
Sr. No.197
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: WP(C) No. 2121/2026
CM No. 4576/2026
CAV No. 1955/2026
Neelam Daluja and Anr. ..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Arun Dev Singh, Advocate
Vs
U.T. of J&K and Ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate vice
Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA for R-1
Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate for R- 2 to 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
13.07.2026
CAV No. 1955/2026
With the appearance of Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate, who is on caveat, the caveat stands
discharged.
WP(C) No. 2121/2026
01. Through the medium of the present writ petition, the petitioners have
challenged notice dated 07.07.2026 issued by the Estate Officer, Jammu
Development Authority, purportedly in exercise of powers conferred under
Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988, whereby the petitioners have
2|Page WP(C) No. 2121/2026
been called upon to remove their property from the premises within a period of
seven days, failing which the same shall be liable to be removed and disposed
of by way of public auction. The aforesaid notice has been impugned in the
present petition.
02. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that
the impugned notice, though purportedly issued under Sub-Section (2) of
Section 6 of the Act of 1988 does not meet the requirements contemplated
under the said Act. It is submitted that the property in question, does not fall
within the definition of public premises, as the construction has been raised by
the petitioners on their proprietary land pursuant to a valid building permission
granted by the competent authority. According to the petitioners, neither the
land belongs to the State/Jammu Development Authority nor any unauthorized
construction has been raised so as to justify initiation of proceedings under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.
03. With a view to fortify his claim, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to Section 4 and 6 of the Jammu
and Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,
1988, which respectively deals with the issuance of show cause notice against
an order of eviction and the power to remove unauthorized constructions. For
facility of reference, the relevant provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:-
4. Issue of notice to show cause against the order of eviction.
1) If the estate officer is of the opinion that any person is in
unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that he
should be evicted, the state officer shall issue in the manner
hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon such
person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction
should not be made.
3|Page WP(C) No. 2121/2026
2) The notice shall –
a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is
proposed to be made; and
b) require all persons concerned, that is to say all persons
who are, or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in,
the public premises,-
i. to show cause, if any, against the proposed order
on or before such date as is specified in the
notice, being a date not earlier than seven days
from the date of issue thereof, and
ii. to appear before the estate officer on the date
specified in the notice along with the evidence
which they intend to produce in support of the
cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if
such hearing is desired.
3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having
it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of
the public premises, and in such other manner as may be
prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been
duly given to all persons concerned.
4) Where the estate officer knows or has reasons to believe that
any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then,
without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3) he shall
cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by
post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such
other manner as may be prescribed.
6. Power to remove unauthorized construction, etc.
1) No person shall –
a) erect or place or raise any building or any movable or
immovable structure or fixture,
b) display or spread any goods,
c) bring or keep any cattle or other animal, on, or against, or in
front of, any public premises except in accordance with the
authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of
transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy such
premises.
2) Where any building or other immovable structure or fixture
has been erected, placed or raised on any public premises in
contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), the estate officer
may serve upon the person erecting such building or structure or
fixture, a notice requiring him either to remove, or to show cause
why he shall not remove such building or other structure or fixture
4|Page WP(C) No. 2121/2026
from the public premises within such period, not being less than five
days as he may specify in the notice; and on the omission or refusal
of such person either to show cause or to remove such building or
other structure or fixture from the public premises, or where the
cause shown is not, in the opinion of the estate officer, sufficient, the
estate officer may by order, remove or cause to be removed the
building or other structure or fixture from the public premises and
recover the cost of such removal from the person aforesaid as an
arrear of land revenue.
3) Where any movable structure or fixture has been erected,
placed or raised, or any goods have been displayed or spread, or any
cattle or other animal has been brought or kept, on any public
premises, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) by
any person, the estate officer may, by order, remove or cause to be
removed without notice, such structure, fixture, goods, cattle or other
animal, as the case may be, from the public premises and recover the
cost of such removal from such persons as an arrear of land revenue.
04. A plain reading of Section 4 makes it manifest that the Estate Officer
can initiate proceedings only where he forms an opinion that a person is in
unauthorized occupation of a public premise and is liable to be evicted. In such
an eventuality, a notice specifying the grounds of proposed eviction is required
to be issued. Likewise, Section 6(2) empowers the Estate Officer to issue
notice only where any building or immovable property has been erected on
public premises in contravention of Section 6(1), requiring the person
concerned either to remove the structure or to show cause why it should not be
removed within the period prescribed therein.
05. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1
purchased land measuring 04 kanals, comprising 03 kanals under Khasra No.
764 and 01 kanal under Khasra No. 771 min, falling under Khata No. 261 and
Khewat No. 33, situated at village Deeli, Jammu, from the erstwhile owners by
virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.1997, whereafter mutation came to
be attested in his favour. A copy of the registered Sale Deed along with
mutation has been placed on record.
5|Page WP(C) No. 2121/2026
06. It has further been pleaded that petitioner No. 2 also purchased adjoining
land measuring 02 kanals falling under Khasra No. 764 min, Khata No. 261
min and Khewat No. 33 min, situated at Village Deeli, Jammu, by way of a
registered Sale Deed dated 23.12.1997, whereafter Mutation No. 1302/Jeem
was attested in his favour. Copies of the Sale Deed and mutation have also
been placed on record.
07. With a view to vindicate his claim, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners submits that the impugned notice has been issued in the name of
M/s Blue Moon, State Times Officer, whereas the said entities are distinct and
the display boards affixed on the building are merely for advertisement
purposes. It is submitted that after purchasing the aforesaid land, which,
according to the petitioners, does not form part of Khasra No. 781, the
petitioners raised construction only after obtaining a valid building permission
from the Jammu Municipal Corporation vide Order No. 706/BS/10 dated
07.08.2010, and the construction has been raised strictly in accordance with the
sanctioned building plan.
08. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, learned Senior counsel further submits
that the respondents-JDA while issuing impugned notice, have observed that
the petitioners failed to produce any valid documentary evidence regarding
their claim over JDA land falling under Khasra No. 781, Village Deeli, Tehsil
Jammu South, on that basis proceeded to issue the impugned notice. However,
on a specific query put by the Court, learned Senior counsel submitted that the
petitioners do not claim any right, title or interest over Khasra No. 781, and
their claim is confined only to Khasra Nos. 764 and 771 min, which constitute
their proprietary land. It is, therefore, contended that the reliance placed by the
6|Page WP(C) No. 2121/2026
respondents upon Khasra No. 781 is wholly misconceived and that the
impugned action is liable to be interfered with to the extent it concerns the
petitioners’ land.
09. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the caveator/respondents
submitted that the stand of the Jammu Development Authority is reflected in
para 5 of the impugned notice, wherein it has been specifically recorded that
the land in question falls under Khasra No. 781, village Deeli, Tehsil Jammu
South as per the demarcation report submitted vide No. DMJ/LO/21-22/1797
dated 28.07.2021 in accordance with order passed by this Court in PIL No.
19/2011 titled S.K. Bhalla Vs. State through GAD & Ors., which stands
verified as per the DGPS of the said Khasra number.
10. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners at length and perused
the record. Also heard learned Senior counsel for the caveator.
11. Prima facie, a case for indulgence is made out.
12. Issue notice, which is waived by Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate
appearing vice Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned GA on behalf of respondent No.
1 and Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Let
the response be filed by the respondents within a period of two weeks
positively.
13. List on 03.08.2026.
14. In the meantime, subject to objections from other side and till next date
of hearing before the Bench, operation of the impugned notice dated
07.07.2026, bearing No. JDA/Teh-D/EO/351-357, shall remain stayed.
15. Alteration/Modification/Vacation on Motion.
7|Page WP(C) No. 2121/2026
16. It is, however, clarified that the interim stay granted herein shall not
come in the way of respondents-Jammu Development Authority from taking
action, in accordance with law, against any unauthorized occupant or
encroacher, including the petitioners, if it is established that they have
encroached upon Khasra No. 781, village Deeli, Tehsil Jammu South, Jammu,
which, according to the respondents, forms part of the land belonging to the
Jammu Development Authority.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
13.07.2026
Mihul
