Kashmir Impulse Desk

Srinagar, April 3

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the rent fixed for a group of shopkeepers in Sopore, ruling that those who accepted government allotments and agreed to payment terms cannot later challenge them.

In a judgment dismissing an appeal, a division bench comprising Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem affirmed an earlier ruling by a single judge, holding that the petitioners were bound by undertakings they had voluntarily executed.

The case dates back to the early 2000s, when shopkeepers operating near the Irrigation and Flood Control Department premises in Sopore were displaced during a road-widening project undertaken by the local town authorities.

In 2004, the government allotted alternative land to the affected traders, subject to specific conditions. 

The shopkeepers constructed new premises at their own expense and secured building permissions from the municipal authorities.

A Rent Assessment Committee, formed in 2005, subsequently fixed the rent based on prevailing market rates, setting it at Rs 10 per square foot per month with a 20 percent increase every five years.

The shopkeepers challenged the decision, arguing that the rent was arbitrary, imposed without adequate hearing, and discriminatory compared to rates charged in other areas. Their petition was rejected by a single judge, prompting the appeal.

Upholding the earlier decision, the division bench said the appellants, having accepted the allotment and agreed to the terms, were “estopped” from disputing them later.

The court also rejected claims of discrimination, noting that the shops were located on Nowpora Road, a commercially significant area, and could not be equated with properties in less valuable localities.

Addressing arguments related to due process, the bench held that the principles of natural justice had not been violated, as the rent was determined through objective criteria and contractual terms accepted by the shopkeepers.

The judges further observed that the matter had already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings and that repeated litigation on the same issue amounted to an abuse of the legal process.

Finding no legal infirmity in the earlier ruling, the court dismissed the appeal, effectively closing the long-running dispute.