LPA 17/2026 Serial no. 2 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) From Srinagar Wing LPA 17/2026 IN[WP(C) 1120/2022] CM(648/2026) CM(649/2026 M/S Satyug India Home Products IGC Samba Through Iqbal Ahmed Rajput . . . Petitioner/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Nirmal Kotwal, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Surabhi Kotwal, Adv. Vs. Union of India and others . . . Respondent(s) Through: Mr.Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Karan Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 02.03.2026 1. The appellant had filed the writ petition bearing WP(C) 1120 of 2022 for commanding the respondents to release the rent in its favour from the year 2008 to 2015, as the paramilitary forces had occupied its premises from the year 2008 and vacated the same only in the year 2015. 2. The learned writ court took note of a suit filed by the appellant prior to filing of the writ petition, before the Principal District Judge, Samba, whereby the appellant had sought recovery of compensation of an amount of Rs. 19.00 crores from the respondents and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that LPA 17/2026 apparently the grounds urged by the appellant in the said suit for claiming damages/compensation from the defendants were more or less the same as the grounds urged in writ petition. It was also observed by the writ court that the appellant had specifically pleaded before the civil court that it was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000 per day from the date of occupation of the premises by the paramilitary forces till its vacation, meaning thereby that the appellant was claiming compensation for the use and occupation of the premises by the paramilitary forces, besides for the alleged damage caused to the infrastructure by the paramilitary forces. 3. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the record, particularly the plaint appended with the writ petition, we find that the learned writ court has rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and the view of the learned writ court is unexceptionable. Once the appellant had filed the suit for compensation for the unauthorised occupation and use of the of the premises, then the writ petition was not maintainable. 4. In view the above, we do not find any reason to show indulgence. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) Judge Chief Justice SRINAGAR 02.03.2026 N Ahmad Nissar Ahmad Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.03.2026 16:33