RAJINDER OBEROI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging order No.NAC/Tg/02.Estt/438 dtd. 2/10/2002, passed by Secretary, Municipal Committee, Gulmarg/Tangmarg, whereby lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of the building situated at site No.221-A, Gulmarg, has been cancelled. Challenge has also been thrown to communication No.DULB/CC/NF/2708 dtd. 2/6/2004, issued by Director, Urban Local Bodies, Kashmir, as also communication No.DULB/Gen/1087/ 2076 dtd. 11/6/2004 along with corrigendum dtd. 23/6/2004, whereby allotment of the aforesaid property has been made in favour of Mr. Ghulam Qadir Palla, respondent No.7 herein.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the property in question was leased out to him by virtue of a lease deed dtd. 17/5/1989, executed between her and respondent No.2, whereafter a supplementary lease deed was executed on 16/7/1989, and a clause was incorporated in the lease deed whereby the petitioner was given right to mortgage the lease hold rights for the purpose of raising loan in connection with construction and commissioning of the project during the currency of the lease. It is averred that the building was leased out to the petitioner for carrying on the business of hotel/restaurant and bar for promotion of tourism initially for a period of 15 years renewable for a further period of 15 years. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the execution of the lease deed, she took over possession of the demised premises whereafter she obtained loan of Rs.40.00 lacs from the State Financial Corporation for the purpose of completion of construction work at the site. It is averred that due to onset of militancy in the year 1990, the petitioner had to migrate outside Kashmir Valley, as such, she could not undertake further construction activities in the demised premises. However, when the valley limped back to normalcy, the petitioner returned to the Valley and started completing the balance construction work but due to her political affiliations, respondents No.2 and 3 started interfering in petitioner's completion of construction work on the demised premises.

(3.) The petitioner, it seems, had filed a writ petition bearing No.08/2004 challenging the action of respondents No.2 and 3. In the objections filed by the respondents to the said writ petition, a stand was taken by them that the lease of the demised premises in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled in terms of communication dtd. 2/10/2002. Accordingly, the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ petition and filed the instant petition challenging the communication of cancellation of lease deed.