SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has held that encroached Kahcharai land cannot now be exchanged against proprietary land under the amended law, while directing authorities not to evict former Congress leader Peerzada Mohammad Syed without following due legal procedure.
Justice MA Chowdhary delivered the judgment on June 4, 2026, in OWP No. 1068/2015, which had been reserved on June 2.
The petition had been filed by Peerzada Mohammad Syed, a resident of Friends Enclave, Airport Road, Budgam, seeking protection against alleged demolition and eviction from land identified as “N-23” adjoining his residential plot at Friends Enclave, Humhama.
The petitioner was represented by advocates M Ayoub Bhat and Mahjabeen Bhat, while the Union Territory authorities were represented by Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway.
According to the court record, the petitioner claimed that he had been allotted Plot No. 21 at Friends Enclave by the JK Cooperative Housing Corporation because of security threats arising from his political activities. The petition stated that he had faced militant attacks and that his Kokernag residence had been targeted several times.
The petitioner told the court that an adjoining strip of land measuring around 9 to 10 marlas, identified as “N-23”, was vacant and had been used for construction of a shed for security personnel and a lavatory block to secure his residence. He further claimed that the JK Cooperative Housing Corporation had allotted the land to him through a communication dated November 20, 2010.
However, revenue authorities contended that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon 17 marlas of Kahcharai land falling under Survey No. 1076/2 in village Humhama and had raised constructions without legal authority.
The respondents informed the court that a demarcation exercise revealed the encroachment and that the structures were removed pursuant to an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, on December 20, 2014.
The court observed that a committee of revenue officials headed by the Tehsildar, Budgam, had also found the land in question to be Kahcharai land under unauthorized occupation.
Referring to the legal position, the court noted that Section 133(2) of the Land Revenue Act earlier permitted an encroacher to offer proprietary land in exchange before eviction proceedings. However, the provision was amended through S.O. 3808(E) dated October 26, 2020.
Justice Chowdhary observed: “From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law, it is manifestly clear that the exchange of proprietary land for encroached Kahcharaie land is not permissible now and the Deputy Commissioner concerned has no power to accept any such offer.”
The court further noted that even before the amendment, the petitioner’s application for exchange had been rejected by the District Collector, Budgam, on June 27, 2016, because no specific proprietary land had been offered in exchange.
Rejecting the plea seeking a direction for consideration of the exchange proposal, the court held that there was “no legal basis or statutory framework” to compel authorities to accept such an offer.
The judgment said the petitioner was in “unauthorized possession” of Kahcharai land and that the authorities were “at liberty to seek eviction or removal of the said encroachment from the land in question in accordance with law.”
The court, however, partly allowed the petition by directing that the petitioner “shall not be evicted without following due course of law.”
