7 min readNew DelhiMar 6, 2026 12:57 PM ISTThe plea of violation of principles of natural justice or discrimination is devoid of substance, the court said on March 4. (Image is generated using AI)The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to overturn its earlier judgement of a dismissed plea filed by a few shokeepers challenging the Rent Assessment Committee, noting that they have undertaken to pay rent based on prevailing market rates, and are estopped from challenging the same at this stage. A bench of justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem was hearing the appeal of a few shopkeepers seeking the reversal of an earlier judgment challenging the rent assessment committee’s rent fixation as arbitrary and substantially higher than the rent being paid by other shopkeepers in the same locality. No legal infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error was found in the earlier judgment, the court said.The shopkeepers had accepted the allotment of land and undertaken to pay rent as determined by the Rent Assessment Committee, based on prevailing market rates, and are “estopped from challenging the same at this stage,” the court held on March 4.No merit foundNo merit was found in the present appeal. The shopkeepers, having accepted the allotment of land and having executed undertakings to pay rent as determined by the rent assessment committee based on prevailing market rates, are estopped from challenging the same at this stage. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice or discrimination is devoid of substance, particularly when the rent has been fixed based on objective criteria, location-specific market valuation, and in accordance with the government orders governing the allotment.No legal infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the judgment dated February 21, 2024, warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction is found.The appeal is dismissed. Higher rent fixed Advocate Irshad Ahmad for the applicants submitted applicants’ grievance is that the rent assessment committee acted arbitrarily and in violation of the mandate issued to it. It is contended that the appellants were not afforded an opportunity of participation in the assessment process.The committee fixed the rent at the rate of Rs 10 per square foot per month with a 20 per cent enhancement after every five years, which was substantially higher than the rent being paid by other shopkeepers in the same locality. The appellants further contend that rent agreements executed by other shopkeepers with the municipal council, reflecting much lower rates, were placed on record but were not considered. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the appellants approached this court, challenging the rent fixation as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of natural justice on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to them. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, this court, through an order dated March 31, 2021, directed the appellants to deposit rent at the undisputed rate of Rs 5 per square foot per month till final adjudication. This petition has been dismissed by the judgment dated February 21, 2024, on the ground that the petitioners have undertaken to pay the rent in respect of the allotted shops at the market value to be assessed by the rent assessment committee; it cannot be reagitated.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that despite such compliance, the writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated February 21, 2024, on the ground that the issues raised had already been judgedin earlier proceedings and could not be re-agitated, and that repeated litigation on the same cause amounted to abuse of the process of law.Subsequently, the respondents issued notices to the appellants for clearance of the balance rent in accordance with the fixation made by the rent assessment committee at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square foot per month, with a clarification that the amount already deposited would be adjusted. The appellants contend that the rent fixation is discriminatory since similarly situated shopkeepers were charged lower rent, and that the learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. Respondent’s submissions Advocate, Jahingeer Ahmad, for the respondents, submits that the allotment and rent fixation were made strictly in accordance with the government orders and the terms and conditions governing the allotment, and that the appellants are attempting to reopen issues already settled by this court.He contended that, about the principal contention raised by the appellants that the rent fixed by the rent assessment committee is excessive, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Single Judge.The appellants executed affidavits undertaking that they shall pay rent as per the prevailing market rate of the town, which was to be assessed by the rent assessment committee, with a reasonable enhancement after every five years.The doctrine of estoppel (a party cannot make contradictory claims or assertions in legal proceedings) squarely applies, and the appellants are bound by the undertakings furnished by them. The plea of discrimination is equally untenable.The tehsildar Sopore had intimated that the shop structure is in the prime location of Sopore town and the prevailing cost of shop location is Rs. 10 lacs per kanal. The record demonstrates that the rent assessment committee relied upon the report dated June 29, 2005, submitted by the executive engineer, municipal council, SoporeShops on Kupwara Road were assessed at Rs 5 per square foot. per month, whereas shops on Nowpora Road, where the appellants’ shops are situated, were assessed at Rs 10 per square foot. per month.The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellants were attempting to re-agitate issues which had already been considered in earlier proceedings. Longstanding shopkeepersThe appellants are longstanding shopkeepers who have been carrying on their business for several decades in front of the premises of the irrigation and flood control department, Sopore.During the process of road widening undertaken by the Town Area Committee, Sopore, the shops of the appellants were demolished, resulting in the deprivation of their means of livelihood.Consequent to the demolition of their shops, the appellants made repeated representations before the concerned authorities seeking allotment of alternative land for rehabilitation. The government of Jammu and Kashmir, vide order dated December 31, 2004, and cabinet decision dated December 30, 2004, sanctioned allotment of land in favour of the dislocated shopkeepers, including the appellants, subject to certain terms and conditions.Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the appellants raised construction of shops at their own cost and deposited the requisite building permission fee with the municipal council, Sopore.For the fixation of rent of the newly constructed shops, the superintending engineer, Hydraulic Circle, Sopore, constituted a rent assessment committee through a letter dated February 12, 2005.The letter directed to fix rent on the basis of prevailing market rates with a reasonable increase after every five years.Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights. She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life. Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach. Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:Jammu and Kashmir High Court