Allowed

Ms. Anjuma Salam Din and Another v. Union Territory of J and K through Commissioner Secretary Housing and Urban Development and Ors.

J&K HC10 Sept 2026WP(C)/1220/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the J&K Housing Board to refund the deposited amount to the petitioners with 9% interest per annum from the filing date, dismissing the claim for specific performance of the plot allotment due to unforeseen contingencies and closure of the related contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

The Housing Board directed to pay the entire deposited sum with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization, payable within three months.

Ms. Anjuma Salam Din and Another Vs Union Territory of J… — Specific Performance | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶2

Reserved on: 07.09.2026 Pronounced on: 10.09.2026 Uploaded on: 10.09.2026

¶3

Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full

¶4

WP(C) No.1220/2021 c/w CCP(S) No.115/2023

¶5

MS. ANJUM SALAM DIN & ANR.

¶6

...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)

¶7

Through: - Mr. Sajad Geelani, Advocate Mr. Sami Lone, Advocate.

Vs.

UT OF J&K & ORS.

…RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Hakeem Aman Ali, Dy. AG, with Ms. Rahella Khan, Assisting Counsel.

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

WP(C) No.1220/2021:

¶15

1) With the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, this petition was taken up for final disposal.

¶16

2) This petition was initially filed by one Gulshan Akhtar, by asserting that her husband was allotted the plot in terms of allotment order dated 29^th of June, 1988, measuring 30 feet by 50 feet, situated at Kadipora Housing Board Colony

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

at Fatehgarh, vide allotment No.GM/Fatehgarh/89092dated 29.06.1988. It was contended by her that despite making the payment of Rs.5250/-, the possession of the plot was not handed over to her. It needs to be noted that the original petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and, was substituted by her legal heirs.

¶19

3) Objections have been filed by the respondents, stating therein that during the year 1978, a chunk of land measuring 804.04 kanals was acquired by J&K Housing Board for establishment of Housing Colony at Kadipora Anantnag. Out of the said land, 116 plots of different sizes were allotted to various allottees out of total 1078 plots till 1990. However, due to turmoil in the Valley, the Army occupied the entire land and in the year 2004, out of total land measuring 804.04 kanals, land measuring 259.04 kanals was transferred to South Campus of Kashmir University pursuant to the approval of competent authority conveyed through Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, with the condition that Housing Board would be compensated either in cash or in the form of available Government land, to be identified by the Revenue Department. However, vide communication dated 10^th September, 2025, the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, communicated the nonPage 2 of 5

¶20

availability of the State land in lieu of the said land. Subsequently, the Kashmir University South Campus unauthorisedly occupied another 90 kanals of land. Accordingly, it is stated that the entire land which was proposed for developing the Housing Colony is under occupation of the Army and the Kashmir University South Campus, and as such, Housing Board could not develop and establish the housing colony on the said land.

¶21

4) In terms of order dated 30^th June, 2021, it was directed that the representation filed by the petitioner for redressal of her grievances be considered in accordance with the rules governing the field.

¶22

5) The contempt petition bearing CCP(S) No.115/2023 was filed by the deceased-petitioner complaining the noncompliance of the order dated 30^th June, 2021.

¶23

6) Statement of facts stands filed by the respondent

¶24

Housing Board, thereby reiterating their stand taken in the response to the main writ petition. However, in para (7) of the response to the contempt petition, it is stated that the petitioner along with other similarly placed persons/ allottees were asked to get refund of the amounts deposited by them but without any interest, as the delay was totally

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

circumstantial and not attributable to J&K Housing Board but the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were reluctant to take the payment from the Housing Board.

¶27

7) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present petition be disposed of by directing the Housing Board to return the amount paid by the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners along with interest.

¶28

8) It stands uncontroverted that the subject housing colony could not be established owing to unforeseen contingencies. Furthermore, it is undisputed fact that the respondent-Housing Board has duly received the amount and has expressed its readiness to refund the same, albeit strictly sans interest.

¶29

9) Irrespective of the grounds for delay, the amount deposited by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest has remained in custody of respondent Housing Board. Consequently, the present writ petition stands disposed of, directing the respondent Housing Board to pay the petitioners the entire deposited sum along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of this petition until realization, payable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

10) The proceedings in the contempt petition bearing CCP(S) No.115/2023, in view of the disposal of the main writ petition, are closed and the contempt petition shall stand disposed of.

¶32

(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge

¶33

Srinagar, 10.09.2026

¶34

“Bhat Altaf-Secretary” Whether the judgment is reportable: NO

¶35

Page 5 of 5

Ms. Anjuma Salam Din and Another v. Union Territory of J and K through Commissioner Secretary Housing and Urban Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Anjuma Salam Din and Another v. Union Territory of J and K through Commissioner Secretary Housing and Urban Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases