Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a beneficiary of a government allotment cannot challenge conditions voluntarily accepted at the time of allotment, invoking the doctrine of estoppel to dismiss an appeal filed by a group of displaced Sopore shopkeepers against rent fixation.
A division bench of Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem ruled that parties who accept the benefits of a government policy or contractual arrangement are bound by its terms and cannot subsequently “approbate and reprobate” by questioning those very conditions. The court also emphasised that differential rent based on location and commercial value does not amount to discrimination.
The appeal, filed by Mehraj-ud-Din Peer and others, challenged a February 21, 2024 judgment of a single Judge that had dismissed their writ petition against the fixation of rent by a Rent Assessment Committee.
The case arose from the demolition of shops belonging to the appellants during a road-widening project undertaken by the Town Area Committee, Sopore.
Following the demolition, the government sanctioned allotment of alternative land belonging to the Irrigation and Flood Control Department for rehabilitation of the affected shopkeepers under a 2004 Cabinet decision.
The shopkeepers constructed new shops at their own cost after obtaining permission from the Municipal Council, Sopore. Subsequently, a Rent Assessment Committee constituted in 2005 fixed rent at ₹10 per square foot per month, with a 20 percent increase every five years, based on prevailing market rates.
Challenging the fixation, the appellants argued that the rate was excessive, arbitrary and discriminatory, and that they had not been given an opportunity to participate in the assessment process. They also cited lower rents paid by other shopkeepers in the area.
However, the High Court noted that the appellants had accepted the allotment subject to specific conditions, including payment of rent as per market rates to be determined by the committee, and had furnished undertakings to abide by the same.
“Having accepted the benefits of the allotment, the appellants cannot now resile from their commitments,” the bench said, adding that the doctrine of estoppel squarely applied in the case.
On the issue of natural justice, the court held that the absence of a hearing did not vitiate the process. It observed that the rent fixation was carried out pursuant to a policy decision and contractual terms accepted by the appellants themselves, based on objective market parameters, location, and reports of competent authorities.
The appellants, the court said, failed to demonstrate any real prejudice caused due to the alleged denial of hearing, particularly in view of their prior undertaking to accept the committee’s determination.
The bench also rejected the plea of discrimination, pointing out that the appellants’ shops were located on Nowpora Road, a commercially more valuable area than Kupwara Road, where lower rents had been fixed. Differential pricing based on location and market potential, it held, is a recognised principle and does not constitute hostile discrimination.
It further observed that the appellants had sought to re-agitate issues already settled in earlier proceedings, terming such repeated litigation an abuse of the process of law.
Finding no legal infirmity or perversity in the single Judge’s ruling, the Division Bench declined to interfere in appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
