Jammu Kashmir High Court Sets Aside Cantonment Eviction Order, Says Defence Must Prove Ownership | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside an eviction order issued against a Srinagar family over a disputed parcel of land in Sonawar, holding that authorities cannot invoke summary eviction proceedings where ownership itself is contested.

The judgment in WP (C) No 1760/2022, reserved on April 8, 2026, and pronounced and uploaded on April 22, 2026, was delivered by Justice MA Chowdhary. The court quashed the order dated August 8, 2022, issued by the Estates Officer of the Cantonment Board under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

The petition was filed by four members of the Bhat family, Ghulam Nabi Bhat (60), Tariq Ahmad Bhat (48), Hilal Ahmad Bhat (46), and Farhan Sami-Ullah Bhat (42), residents of Iqbal Colony, Sonawar. They challenged the eviction proceedings initiated against land they claimed to have possessed and owned for decades.

According to the petitioners, their claim over the land at Bonamsar, Sonawar, traces back to a period prior to 1950, with ownership later reinforced through a registered sale deed executed on June 3, 1971, in favour of their predecessor. They argued that their rights were further upheld in a civil suit decided on December 27, 2006, by a Srinagar court, which restrained the Cantonment Board from interfering with their possession. The family maintained that revenue records, including Jamabandi entries, consistently reflected their ownership.

The dispute intensified in May 2022, when the Cantonment Board issued a show-cause notice alleging encroachment on defence land. Despite submitting documents to support their claim, the petitioners said the authorities proceeded to pass the eviction order, directing them to remove structures within 15 days. They argued this action ignored both their documentary evidence and prior judicial findings.

On the other hand, the Union of India and defence authorities contended that the land in question forms part of defence property recorded as B-4 category land in the General Land Register (GLR), under Survey No. 40/6, measuring over 1800 square feet. They maintained that GLR entries constitute conclusive evidence of title and asserted that the petitioners had encroached upon government land. The defence further argued that the earlier civil court decree was not binding on it, as the Cantonment Board functions merely as an administrative body, while ownership vests with the Defence Ministry.

The Cantonment Board echoed this position, stating that the petitioners’ reliance on a different survey number—176/165—was misplaced, as eviction proceedings pertained to Survey No. 40/6. Authorities also argued that the writ petition raised complex factual disputes unsuitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction.

Revenue authorities from the Union Territory, however, introduced another layer to the dispute. Their records indicated that at least a portion of the land under Survey No. 176/165 was proprietary in nature and had been transferred to the petitioners’ predecessor through sale and inheritance mutations, thereby lending partial support to the petitioners’ claim.

After examining the competing claims, the High Court observed that the case involved a bona fide dispute over title, with both sides asserting ownership based on separate records and legal grounds. In such circumstances, the court held, summary eviction under the 1971 Act—designed for clear cases of unauthorized occupation—cannot be used as a substitute for proper adjudication of title.

The court emphasized that where ownership is contested, especially with long-standing possession and supporting documents, the matter must be resolved through a civil court. It noted that summary proceedings do not provide the procedural safeguards necessary to adjudicate complex title disputes.

Justice Chowdhary also examined the evidentiary value of the General Land Register, concluding that entries in the GLR cannot override revenue records or registered sale deeds, particularly when prepared without affording affected parties an opportunity to be heard. The court found that the defence authorities had failed to produce any independent title documents beyond GLR entries to substantiate their claim.

Referring to established legal principles and Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that the government cannot unilaterally declare ownership and evict occupants through summary procedure when a genuine dispute exists. It underlined that registered sale deeds carry a presumption of validity unless convincingly rebutted.

Setting aside the eviction order, the court granted liberty to the respondents to approach a competent civil court to establish ownership. Only after securing such a declaration, the court said, could eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act be lawfully initiated.

The ruling effectively restores the petitioners’ possession for now, while shifting the dispute to a civil forum for final determination of title.