The Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) today paid solemn tribute to all 26 individuals who lost their lives in the tragic attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, marking the first anniversary of the incident.

In a statement, the Chamber expressed deep condolences and remembered each of the 26 victims with profound respect. It stated that the loss of these lives continues to be felt across society, with families and communities still grappling with the aftermath of the tragedy.

KCCI also paid homage to the sacrifice of Syed Adil Shah, a tourist guide who lost his life while saving tourists, highlighting the spirit of Kashmiris who have always stood to host and protect visitors.

Describing the incident as a painful chapter, the Chamber said it remains a moment of collective grief and reflection.

The Chamber further emphasised the importance of continued efforts towards peace, stability, and a conducive environment for all.

Srinagar, Apr 22: Underscoring that the disputed questions of land title cannot be decided through summary proceedings under the Public Premises Act, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh Wednesday quashed an eviction order issued by the Cantonment authorities against some residents of Sonawar here.

Allowing the four aggrieved persons’ plea, a Bench of Justice M AChowdhary, set aside the order dated August 8, 2022, passed by the Estates Officer, Cantonment Board, BadamiBagh Srinagar.

In their plea, the petitioners had assailed the eviction proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, asserting ownership and long-standing possession of land at Bonamsar, Sonawar Srinagar.

They relied on revenue records, mutations, and a civil court decree to claim the land as proprietary.

Opposing the plea, the Union of India and Cantonment authorities argued that the land formed part of Defence property recorded as B-4 land in the General Land Register (GLR).

The petitioners, they alleged, were unauthorised occupants.

In its decision, the court held that both sides had raised competing claims over the land, identified differently in revenue and defence records, thereby involving complex and bona fide disputes of title.

“Summary eviction proceedings cannot be used where title is seriously disputed,” the court said.

With regard to the petitioners claim that the land in question was purchased by their predecessor-in-interest in terms of a registered sale deed June 3, 1971, the court said: “In respect of a registered sale deed, the well settled proposition of law lays down that a registered sale deed carries a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness and that the burden of proof to displace this presumption rests heavily upon the challenger, requiring material particulars and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the deed was never intended to operate as a bona fide transfer of title.”

The petitioners were claiming title and possession over the subject property through their predecessors-in-interest from the year 1950, whereas, the respondents claimed the subject land is dovernment/ defense land which had been encroached upon by the Petitioners.

“In such a situation, having regard to the referred legal position, unless they establish their title through competent civil court, the respondents are not entitled to initiate and pass the eviction order exercising the powers conferred under the Act of 1971, which is summary in nature, thereby rendering the same without jurisdiction,” the court said.   

The question raised before the court was whether the Cantonment Board was entitled to initiate proceedings against the Petitioners under the Act of 1971, being summary in nature.

“The law is that the summary remedy for eviction, as is provided under the Act of 1971, can be resorted to by the concerned authority only against the persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any land which is the property of the government,” the court said.

However, the court said: “If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the government to any property, the government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and, on the basis of such decision, take recourse to the summary remedy provided by the Act of 1971 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title.”

With regard to reliance on the General Land Register (GLR), the court said the same is not prepared after issuing any notification calling for the objections from the interested persons, as in a case relating to the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the Record of Rights in Land Regulations.

“There is no wide publicity given and none is heard before making such entries in GLR. Where a record is prepared by a public servant and such record affects the persons who have no opportunity to object to the same, such record does not carry any probative value,” it said.

The court said that the principles of natural justice, are required to be complied with by the public servants in the matter of preparation of any documents, which may have a tendency of adversely affecting the rights of the private citizens. 

“Only such documents prepared after due notice and hearing of all the concerned shall be deemed to be made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty within the meaning of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act,” it said.

The GLR, as such, cannot be said to be prepared and maintained in respect of the rights in or over the land, the court said.

Bandipora, Apr 22: A local court in Bandipora has acquitted an accused in an illegal mining case, holding that prosecution under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act cannot proceed without a mandatory complaint by an authorised officer.

The Additional Sessions Court in Bandipora has acquitted Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat in a case registered under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, ruling that the prosecution was vitiated due to the absence of a mandatory complaint by an authorised officer, a legal prerequisite for taking cognisance of offences under the Act.

The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Bandipora, Mir Wajahat who was designated as Special Judge for offences under the MMDR Act, in connection with FIR No. 10/2026 registered at Police Station Sumbal. The case also involved offences under Section 169(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 5/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The court held that proceedings against the accused could not be sustained as the statutory requirement under Section 22 of the MMDR Act—mandating a written complaint by an authorised officer—had not been fulfilled.

It ruled that a police report could not substitute such a complaint, and therefore, cognisance taken based on the charge sheet was legally untenable.

According to the prosecution, the case originated from a written communication dated January 14, 2026, by the District Mineral Officer (DMO), Bandipora, alleging illegal extraction of minerals. 

Acting on this, police registered an FIR and conducted an investigation, following which a charge sheet was filed before the Special Court. Statements of witnesses were recorded and material evidence collected during the investigation.

During the proceedings, the defence through Advocate Irshad Ahmad Dar raised a legal objection at the stage of charge, arguing that the entire prosecution was invalid as no formal complaint had been filed by an authorised officer as required under the MMDR Act. 

The prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the DMO was an authorised officer and that the communication addressed to the police, followed by registration of FIR and investigation, satisfied the legal requirements.

The court framed the issue as a question of jurisdiction and examined whether it could take cognisance of the offence based on a police report in the absence of a statutory complaint. 
It noted that Section 22 of the MMDR Act explicitly bars courts from taking cognisance of offences punishable under the Act except upon a complaint made by an authorised officer.

In its analysis, the court observed that the communication sent by the DMO to the police could not be treated as a complaint in terms of the law. It held that such communication merely initiated the investigative process and did not fulfil the statutory condition required for prosecution. 

The court further clarified that a complaint must be made to a Magistrate or Special Court with a view to initiating judicial proceedings, and not merely to the police for registration of an FIR.

The court also examined the interplay between the MMDR Act and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), noting that while police are empowered to investigate cognizable offences, the special provisions of the MMDR Act override general procedural law when it comes to taking cognisance. It held that compliance with Section 22 is a condition precedent and not a procedural formality that can be cured at a later stage.

Relying on judicial precedents, including rulings of the Supreme Court, the court reiterated that offences under the MMDR Act are complaint-based and require strict adherence to statutory provisions.

It stated that allowing prosecution based solely on police reports would defeat the legislative intent of maintaining regulatory control over mining activities through designated authorities.

The court further observed that the limitation period for filing a complaint under the applicable rules begins from the date of the alleged offence and not from the date of registration of the FIR. It noted that even if a complaint were to be filed subsequently, it must comply with the prescribed limitation period and procedural requirements.

Concluding that the foundational requirement for invoking jurisdiction had not been met, the court discharged the accused from the offences under the MMDR Act. It clarified that the acquittal was based on legal grounds and not on an assessment of the merits of the allegations.

With respect to the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, the court directed that the relevant part of the charge sheet be transmitted to the court of the jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

The court also ordered that the bail bonds furnished by the accused stand discharged and that the case record be consigned to the record room after completion of necessary formalities. (KNS)