SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a challenge by former directors of a struck-off company against the demolition communication issued by the Leh administration concerning the tourist resort ‘The Last Resort’ at Palam village, Spituk, holding that the authorities had acted based on official records which identified another person as the registered proprietor of the establishment.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, in a judgment pronounced on July 21, 2026, held that the petitioners had failed to establish any legal obligation on the part of the authorities to issue them an independent notice before initiating action for removal of the alleged encroachment. The Court accordingly declined to quash the communication dated May 17, 2022, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Leh.
The judgment, reserved on July 8 and uploaded on July 22, was delivered in WP(C) No. 1196/2022, along with connected applications and CCP(S) No. 260/2023. The writ petition had been filed by Kunzang Dolma, Atul Kumar and Jagat Singh, described in the case as former directors of the struck-off company. Petitioner No. 2, Atul Kumar, appeared in person. The official respondents were represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, assisted by Central Government Standing Counsel Karan Sharma, while Rahul Pant, Senior Advocate, appeared with Advocate Anirudh Sharma for private respondents Tsering Angchok and the Managing Committee of Spituk Gompa.
The dispute arose from a communication dated May 17, 2022, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Leh, directing removal of the alleged encroachment from State land. The petitioners had initially sought several reliefs, including quashing of the demolition communication, permission to continue operating the business, a temporary electricity connection, compensation for the use of the premises as a COVID Isolation Centre and loss of business, allotment of alternate land, demarcation of the respective landholdings and access to seized articles and documents.
However, during the hearing, Atul Kumar, who had obtained powers of attorney from the other two petitioners, made a categorical statement that the petitioners did not wish to press reliefs numbered (ii) to (vii). The Court consequently dismissed those claims as not pressed and confined its examination to the legality and validity of the May 17, 2022 communication.
According to the petitioners, Kumar had been pursuing a travel and tourism business in Ladakh and had entered into arrangements with Tsering Angchok and the Managing Committee of Spituk Gompa concerning land at Palam village, Spituk, Leh. A tourist resort called ‘The Last Resort’ was subsequently established there. The petitioners claimed to have invested substantially in temporary structures and facilities for tourists. They further claimed that the premises were requisitioned by the District Administration during the COVID-19 pandemic and used as a COVID Isolation Centre.
Their central grievance before the High Court was that, despite their alleged investment and involvement in running the resort, the administration issued the demolition communication without serving them notice or giving them an opportunity of being heard. They argued that the action consequently violated the principles of natural justice.
The administration, however, maintained that the land was State land and that the resort had been established through illegal encroachment. It told the Court that before initiating action, the District Administration had checked official records, including those maintained by the Tourism Department and Power Development Department. Those records showed Tsering Angchok as the proprietor of ‘The Last Resort’, while the electricity connection for the establishment was also in his name.
The official respondents further submitted that notices preceding the demolition action had been issued to Angchok, who was the person reflected in the official records as the registered proprietor. According to the administration, the notice period expired without a response and action for removal of the alleged encroachment was thereafter initiated in accordance with law.
The private respondents, meanwhile, questioned the maintainability of the writ petition itself. They pointed out that the petition had been filed by directors of M/s Travel Gear Private Limited without impleading the company, and that the company had already been struck off from the Register of Companies. They also argued that the petitioners had no enforceable legal right based on disputed and unregistered arrangements concerning the resort.
Appearing for the official respondents, DSGI Vishal Sharma argued that the authorities had acted after verifying the official records, which identified Angchok as the registered proprietor. Since the petitioners’ names did not appear in either the official tourism or electricity records relating to the resort, he argued that they could not legitimately claim that notice was required to be served upon them.
Senior Advocate Rahul Pant, appearing for respondents 14 and 15, additionally argued that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the communication. He submitted that the company through which the business was allegedly being conducted had already been struck off and that the petitioners were seeking to assert rights based on disputed lease, licence, possession and investment claims. Such questions, he argued, could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The High Court ultimately focused on whether the petitioners were entitled to a separate notice before the administration issued the impugned communication.
After examining the official record, Justice Nargal noted that ‘The Last Resort’ was registered with the Tourism Department in the name of Tsering Angchok and that the electricity connection also stood in his name. The competent authority, therefore, proceeded against Angchok and issued the notice contemplated under law before taking the impugned action.
The Court observed that the petitioners had not produced any official document showing that, on the date of the impugned communication, they were recognised by any statutory authority as owners, proprietors, lessees or occupiers of the establishment.
The judgment stated: “Once the respondents had acted on the basis of the official records maintained by the competent authorities, it cannot be held that they were under any further obligation to issue notice to persons whose names did not find place in such records.”
The Court also explained that natural justice could not be invoked in the abstract, holding that the requirement of notice had to be considered in the context of the person against whom the authority was legally required to proceed.
“The requirement of notice has to be examined in the context of the person against whom the authority was legally required to proceed,” the Court said, adding that once the competent authority proceeded against the person shown in official records as the registered proprietor, the petitioners could not successfully allege violation of natural justice merely because no separate notice had been issued to them.
The Court also found that the petitioners had not produced material demonstrating that the structures sought to be removed had been raised pursuant to any permission, sanction or lawful authority granted by the competent Government authority. It held that once the official respondents proceeded against Angchok, who was reflected in official records as the proprietor, there was no ground to interfere with the consequential action for removal of the alleged encroachment.
Another significant aspect of the judgment concerned the petitioners’ claim based on alleged agreements, private arrangements, possession and investments in the resort. The Court noted that these assertions were seriously disputed by the private respondents and involved disputed questions of fact.
For that reason, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez, (2019) 2 SCC 329, and held that such rival claims concerning title, possession and the nature of private arrangements were matters for a civil court rather than a writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
The High Court made it clear that it was not deciding the rival civil claims of the petitioners and respondents 14 and 15 concerning the property or the resort. It specifically left questions relating to agreements, title, possession, lease and other civil or contractual rights open to be raised before the competent forum in accordance with law.
“This Court has not undertaken any adjudication upon the rival civil claims/rights of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 14 and 15 in respect of the property or the resort,” Justice Nargal clarified, adding that the conclusion was based solely on the official records available before the competent authority at the relevant time.
The Court concluded that no ground had been made out for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the May 17, 2022 communication. It described the petitioners’ challenge as devoid of merit and dismissed the writ petition insofar as it related to the principal prayer seeking quashing of the demolition communication.
With the disposal of the main writ petition, the Court also held that nothing further survived for adjudication in the connected contempt proceedings, CCP(S) No. 260/2023, and ordered those proceedings closed.
The judgment was pronounced by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal at Jammu on July 21, 2026.
