The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused ownership relief founded on the invalidated Roshni Act but quashed the consequential eviction notice because the occupant's separate reliance on an alleged 1998 governmental approval had not been demonstrably considered.
Judge / Bench — Justice M. A. Chowdhary
Long possession and cultivation did not themselves confer title, and the Court neither established the approval's validity nor declared ownership. The competent authority must examine the original approval, revenue record, defence and independent legal basis of the claim after an effective hearing, then pass a reasoned order within six months of service of the judgment. The earlier dispossession direction cannot be acted on without that exercise, and dispossession under the impugned notice remains restrained until a fresh lawful order follows.
Case — Balwant Raj v. State of J&K and others · OWP No. 705/2017 · 22 October 2026 · Jammu wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioner — Sr. Adv. O.P. Thakur, with Adv. Anandita Thakur and Adv. Rohit Singh. Respondents 1–6 — Sr. AAG Monika Kohli, with Adv. Priyanka Bhat. Respondent 7 (JDA) — Adv. Sachin Dogra. Interveners — Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate.