The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently upheld a historic Government Order from 1944 related to land exchange in Pahalgam. The Court protected the vested rights of affected landowners, stating that administrative delays and forest claims cannot undo long-standing legal entitlements.
The case was filed by Haleema Tramboo, the lawful titleholder of a plot in Pahalgam received under Government Order No. 60-C of 1944, which allowed land exchange to support conservation and tourism. Although she obtained official approval in 1989 and applied for construction in 2005–06, the Forest Department kept denying the required No Objection Certificate (NOC), claiming the land fell in a forest zone.
"The Forest Department cannot unilaterally defeat the vested rights arising from Government Order No. 60-C of 1944,"
— Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
The Court emphasized that the 1944 order was lawfully issued under the J&K Constitution Act of 1939 and had never been repealed. It was still legally valid, and any objection raised after decades could not override it.
Justice Wani noted that while the Forest Department called the land "forest area", their own 2010 report showed only 17 green trees and one dry tree, which was not enough to block construction.
Read Also:- Law student Sharmistha Panoli sent to 14 days judicial custody over controversial video on Operation Sindoor
“Calling the land forest in outdated records cannot be a valid reason to deny its use under the current Master Plan,”
— High Court observed
The Court also referred to a previous judgment in Mohammad Shafi Tramboo v. State of J&K, which had upheld the same land exchange policy. It said construction is allowed on such plots unless there is a dense plantation. The Pahalgam Master Plan 2032 clearly supports development where land title is clear and not covered by thick forest.
Read Also:- Supreme Court reviews POSH Act compliance by States and Union Territories on key directions
The Pahalgam Development Authority’s objection that the land was for farming was also rejected. Justice Wani clarified that the land was Banjar-e-Qadim, meaning uncultivable, and there was no evidence of farming. He said that land use within city limits could be changed based on planned development needs.
Separately, the Court also dismissed a PIL filed by the Himalayan Welfare Organization, which challenged the entire 1944 Order. The Court said the group had no legal standing and did not follow the rules for PILs.
“The petitioner’s attempt to apply the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 retroactively to a 1944 order is legally and factually wrong,”
— Court stated
The Act came into effect in 1980 and was applicable to J&K only after 2019. Using it to challenge an old administrative action was ruled out by the Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court enforces UP guidelines on Gangster Act, quashes FIR against SHUATS director
Justice Wani pointed out that many others who received land under the 1944 scheme had already built on their plots. Selectively denying this petitioner the same right was unfair and discriminatory. He said that undoing this old, settled government policy would harm the rule of law.
The Court allowed Haleema Tramboo's petition and asked the Deputy Commissioner of Anantnag to process her land’s settlement as per the 1944 Order. It also imposed a ₹20,000 cost on the opposing party for abusing the legal process.
“Trying to undo a settled historical policy due to administrative negligence is against legal fairness,”
— Justice Wani remarked
Case Title: Haleema Tramboo Vs UT Of J&K, Himalayan Welfare Organization Vs UT Of J&K
