Srinagar, Apr 22: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has set aside an eviction order issued by the Badami Bagh Cantonment Board against four local residents living in the area since 1950, ruling that the authorities can not resort to the summary eviction mechanism under the 1971 Act.
Holding that summary proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, cannot be invoked where a bona-fide dispute over land title exists, Justice M. A. Chowdhary delivered the judgment in favour of the petitioners Ghulam Nabi Bhat and his three brothers, residents of Sonawar, falling within the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board, a local body under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
The affected persons had challenged an August 8, 2022 order of the Estates Officer of the Board directing them to remove their structures from the land.
The petitioners claimed ownership and continuous possession of land at Bonamsar, Sonawar, since before 1950, asserting that the property—recorded as Survey No. 176/165 in revenue records—was proprietary land inherited from their predecessor.
They relied on revenue documents, mutations, and a 2006 civil court decree restraining the Cantonment Board from interfering with their possession.
However, the Union of India and the Cantonment Board argued that the land formed part of defence property recorded as “B-4 land” under the General Land Register (GLR) bearing Survey No. 40/6. They maintained that the petitioners were unauthorized occupants and that GLR entries constituted conclusive proof of title.
The respondent Board also contended that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
The court noted that both sides had laid competing claims based on different survey numbers and documentary records, thereby raising complex questions of title. In such circumstances, the authorities could not resort to the summary eviction mechanism under the 1971 Act, it ruled.
Relying on precedents including Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and State of Rajasthan v. Padmavati Devi, the court reiterated that summary eviction powers are limited to clear cases of unauthorized occupation and cannot be used where title is seriously disputed.
“The government cannot take a unilateral decision regarding ownership and evict occupants through summary procedure when a bona-fide dispute exists,” the court observed, emphasizing that such matters must be adjudicated by competent civil courts.
The court categorically held that summary eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, are not designed to resolve complex disputes of title. Where a bona-fide dispute over ownership arises, such issues must be adjudicated by competent civil courts, and the government cannot unilaterally assume ownership to evict occupants through summary procedure.
The court further noted that long and open possession may, prima facie, indicate a legitimate claim requiring full judicial scrutiny.
Significantly, the court also underscored the evidentiary value of a registered sale deed, citing the recent Supreme Court ruling in Hemalatha v. Tukaram, which affirms a strong presumption of validity in favour of registered conveyances unless disproved by cogent evidence.
On the issue of the General Land Register, the court held that GLR entries do not override revenue records or confer conclusive title, particularly as they are prepared without a public process of notice and objections. Such entries, it said, cannot supersede records maintained under land revenue laws.
Finding the eviction order to be without jurisdiction, the court quashed the impugned notice and allowed the petition.
However, it granted liberty to the Cantonment Board to approach a competent civil court to establish its ownership and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
