Onlykashmir.in News Desk
A migrant Kashmiri Pandit woman has alleged that a large portion of her family property at Omarheer in the Soura area on the outskirts of Srinagar has been enclosed with concrete blocks and metal fencing, despite court directions for its protection. She has urged the district administration to intervene.
Shakuntala Jalali, daughter of Shambu Nath Jalali, a resident of Haba Kadal in Srinagar who presently lives at the Muthi Migrant Camp in Jammu, said the property comprises around 165 kanals of land, including 51 kanals of open land. She has sought action against those allegedly encroaching upon it, as well as against officials responsible for any lapses.
The dispute is pending before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in WP(C) No. 1373/2023, titled Shakuntala Bhan v. UT of J&K and Others. An order dated February 7, 2024, directs the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, and the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, to ensure that status quo is maintained over the property.
An earlier order issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, on June 7, 2023, directed the Tehsildar Eidgah to take the property into custody in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997. Protective boards have also been installed at the site, declaring the land sub judice and under the custody of the District Magistrate.
Despite these measures, Jalali alleges that a large portion of the land has been enclosed with concrete blocks and metal sheets. She has also questioned the issuance of land-revenue extracts, known as Intikhab, by the concerned Patwari in favour of persons claiming rights over the land.
When approached, the concerned Ward Officer said the person who erected the concrete blocks had produced a land-revenue extract issued by the Patwari. The Patwari could not be reached for comment despite repeated attempts.
The case brings into focus a long-standing concern of displaced Kashmiri Pandit families, many of whom have struggled to protect immovable property left behind in the Valley. The 1997 law cited in the administrative order was framed specifically to preserve and protect migrant property and to guard against distress sales, and the custody arrangements and status quo directions in this matter fall within that protective framework.
The central question now is how construction activity could take place on land that stands under custody and court-directed status quo, and on what basis the revenue extract was issued. Since the matter is sub judice, the allegations remain to be examined by the competent authorities and the court. The complainant, however, has asked that the administration act on the ground without delay, so that the property is safeguarded while the proceedings continue and the court’s directions are fully honoured.
