The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected an appeal filed by M/S M.R. Industries, reaffirming that unauthorized occupation of land does not grant any legal rights.

The court underscored that individuals occupying property without a valid rental, lease, or license agreement cannot seek legal protection.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar, observed: “if a person has been allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously, he does not acquire any title over the property and the Courts would not be justified in protecting the possession of any person who was allowed to occupy the premises for some time gratuitously. The protection can only be granted or extended to a person who has a valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour.”

The case arose from M/S M.R. Industries’ occupation of an additional plot adjacent to its officially leased land within the Industrial Estate in Srinagar. The appellant claimed that State authorities had tacitly allowed it to use the plot for two years and asserted that it had paid ground rent during this period. Despite requesting formal allotment of the plot, the authorities denied the request, citing its designation as migrant property and accusing the appellant of encroachment.

Seeking relief, the appellant approached the Additional District Judge in Srinagar, filing a suit to restrain the respondents from interfering with its occupation of the disputed plot. After the trial court denied its request for a temporary injunction, the appellant filed the present appeal. It argued that its prolonged possession of the plot entitled it to protection against eviction unless due process under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act was followed. The appellant further claimed "settled possession" of the land and contended that the respondents’ failure to file a written statement should weigh in its favor.

In response, the respondents countered that the appellant had no legal entitlement to the plot, as no formal allotment had ever been made. They asserted that the land was privately owned by a third party and that the appellant’s occupation was unauthorized and constituted encroachment.

Citing the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, the court noted that “a person holding a premises gratuitously and whose initial entry in the premises is questionable, would not acquire any right or interest in the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequence.”

The court noted that the appellant had admitted to occupying the additional plot with the defendants’ permission but without any formal allotment. Additionally, it was established that the land in question belonged to a third party identified as a migrant.