Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed an appeal by M/S M. R. Industries, affirming that gratuitous occupancy of land does not confer any legal rights. The ruling emphasised that courts cannot extend protection to individuals occupying property without a valid rental, lease, or license agreement.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar, observed: “if a person has been allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously, he does not acquire any title over the property and the Courts would not be justified in protecting the possession of any person who was allowed to occupy the premises for some time gratuitously. The protection can only be granted or extended to a person who has a valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour.”

The case originated from the appellant/ plaintiff, M/S M. R. Industries’, occupation of an additional plot adjacent to land it had been officially leased within the Industrial Estate at Srinagar. The plaintiff contended that it had been tacitly permitted by State authorities to use the plot for two years and claimed to have paid ground rent for it. The industrial unit had requested formal allotment of the plot, but the authorities denied the request, citing the plot’s status as migrant property. The authorities also accused the appellant of encroachment.

Seeking protection, the appellant filed a suit before the Additional District Judge in Srinagar to restrain the respondents from interfering with its occupation of the plot. The trial court rejected the appellant’s application for temporary injunction, prompting the present appeal. The appellant argued that its prolonged possession entitled it to protection against eviction unless due process under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act was followed. It was further claimed “settled possession” of the plot and questioned the absence of a written statement from the respondents, asserting this should favour its case.

The respondents maintained that the appellant had no legal claim to the land, as no formal allotment was ever made. It was asserted that the land was privately owned by a third party and that the appellant’s occupation was unauthorized and amounted to encroachment.

Citing the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, the court noted that “a person holding a premises gratuitously and whose initial entry in the premises is questionable, would not acquire any right or interest in the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequence.”

The court found that the appellant himself admitted that he was allowed to occupy the additional plot of land by the defendants without any formal allotment. Furthermore, the land in question is acknowledged to belong to a third party who is a migrant.

Consequently, the court ruled, “there is no legal right or interest created in favour of the plaintiff in this case, so as to entitle him to remain in possession of the suit land. Thus, there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. For this reason alone, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to grant of interim injunction.”

 

Cause Title: M/S M. R. Industries vs. State of J&K and Ors. [MA No. 141/2013]

Appearance: Advocate Nisar Ahmad Bhat appeared for the appellant; and Government Advocate Zahid Qais Noor represented the respondent authorities.