Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Building Operation Controlling vs Sudesh Khajuria S/O Sh. Lok Nath on 12 December, 2024
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Serial No. 2
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
OW104/32/2012
Building Operation Controlling .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Authority.
Through: Mr. Harshwardan Gupta, Advocate
vs
1. Sudesh Khajuria S/o Sh. Lok Nath ..... Respondent(s)
Khajuria R/o New Plot, Jammu.
2. J&K Special Tribunal Jammu.
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
JUDGDMENT (ORAL)
12.12.2024
1. The instant petition has been filed by the Building Operation Controlling
Authority, Jammu (for short BOCA), against order dated 24.08.2012 (for
short the impugned order) passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu
respondent 2 herein while invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India (previously Sections 103 and 104 of the
Constitution of J&K).
2. The facts emanating from the record would reveal that the respondent
herein intended to raise construction of a residential-cum-commercial
complex and for the said purpose had applied to BOCA for grant of
permission somewhere in the year 2009, whereupon the BOCA in terms of
order No. 1914/BS/2009 dated 21.11.2009 granted permission in favour of
the respondent herein as follows:
OW104/32/2012
2
a) Building norms to be followed while construction:
i) .....
ii) ......
iii) ......
iv) ......
v) Construction of Basement floor
with height 8"-0" upto Slab -855 Sft.
vi) Construction of the plinth for
Residential Block -2180 Sft.
b) After construction of structure as per conditions at (a) the
applicant shall get the same inspected to check the violation if any,
so as to consider the stage 2nd construction with construction of
commercial hall over basement and superstructure of G.F for
residential use.
c) Accordingly stage 3rd construction of 1st floor & 2nd floors
shall be granted by the Jammu Municipal Corporation.
d) The applicant has submitted the affidavit No. L454837 dated
19.11.2009, stating that he will construct the building as per the
approved building plans of BOCA/JMC and will not violate the use
of building. In case of any violation Jammu Municipal Corporation
shall have every right to demolish the violated portion of the
construction.
3. After commencing construction pursuant to permission dated 21.11.2009,
the respondent 1 herein came to be served with a notice bearing No.
MJ/CEO/47/1/2012 dated 15.02.2012 by the „BOCA under Section 7(1) of
J&K Building Operation Controlling Authority BOCA (for short “the
Act”) providing therein that as per the report of the Khalifwarzi Inspector
dated 13.02.2012, unauthorized construction with the violation of erecting
14 Nos. of RCC pillars was in progress against approved plan, requiring
the respondent 1 herein to show cause within period 48 hrs from the date
of the service of the notice as to why violation be not demolished.
4. The aforesaid notice dated 15.02.2012 was also followed by a
simultaneous notice issued by the BOCA against the respondent 1 herein
dated 15.02.2012 under in terms of provisions Section 12 (1) of the Act of
OW104/32/2012
3
1988 calling upon respondent 1 herein to discontinue with the
construction in question.
5. The respondent 1 herein responded to the aforesaid notice by filing the
written reply, stating therein that there has been no violation committed in
raising the construction, as such, the notice/s be withdrawn in response
whereof, the BOCA issued a demolition order No.MJ/CEO 47/3/2011
dated 16.03.2012 detailing out the violation alleged to have been
committed by the respondent 1 in raising the construction in question and
directed the respondent 1 herein to demolish the said construction within
a period of 5 days from the date of service of the notice.
6. Aggrieved of the said demolish order dated 16.03.2012, the respondent 1
herein preferred a statutory appeal against the order of demolition dated
16.03.2012, before the respondent 2 herein on 26th of March 2012 in
which appeal, the respondent 2 herein passed an order on 26.03.2012, after
hearing the preliminary arguments of the appearing counsels for the
parties being the petitioner herein and respondent herein 1 herein
observing therein that since the construction is at initial stage of
columns, the appellant respondent 1 herein has not committed any
violation of sanctioned plan and allowed the appellant respondent
herein 1 to raise structure strictly as per building permission granted
to him and also directed the respondent therein being the petitioner herein
to furnish the record of the case on the next date.
7. Subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order dated 26.03.2012 by the,
respondent 2 herein, the appeal came to be finally decided in terms of
OW104/32/2012
4
impugned order dated 24.08.2012 and while taking cognizance of the case
set up by the appellant, respondent 1 herein as also the respondent,
petitioner herein, inasmuch as the reports/records submitted by the
respondent petitioner herein, allowed the said appeal, regularised the
violations taken cognizance of and directed the appellant respondent 1
herein to pay a compounding fee for the violations committed in the
raising the construction in question and deposit the same within three
months before the respondent petitioner herein.
8. The petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order passed by
respondent 2 herein in the instant petition preliminary on the grounds
That the order impugned dated 24.08.2012 of the respondent no. 2 is
against facts and all cannons of Law. It is not sustainable and is required
to be set aside. That clause 10 and 11 of J&K Control of Building
Operation Regulation 1998 provide guidelines of appeal and compounding
of construction raised unauthorised. These clauses are quoted for ready
reference:-
9. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondent 1 herein wherein
the petition is being opposed inter-alia on the premise that the Tribunal
being the final arbiter in the matter of question of fact has decided the
appeal upon conclusion of the enquiry conducted on such question of
facts, rightly and validly regularised the violations committed by the
answering respondent while raising the construction in question and that,
in fact, when the construction in question was being raised in accordance
with the sanction permission, the requisite setback came to be maintained
OW104/32/2012
5
without causing any danger to the public safety or else to cause any
hazard to the traffic, inasmuch as without violating the provision of
Master Plan or Town Plan Scheme and, in fact, the construction in
question on pillars got necessitated in view of the nature of the soil and in
order to maintain the safety of the building.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. At the very outset, the appearing counsel for the petitioner states at bar
that the instant writ petition be treated as petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution alone and accordingly, the petition is being treated as a
petition under the Article 227 alone and shall be dealt under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
11. According to the counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal, respondent 2
herein could not have regularized the violations committed by the
respondent 1 herein while raising the construction in question in view of
the Regulation 11 of the J&K Control of Building Operation
Regulations, 1998 (for short the Regulation), which regulations
specifically prohibit compounding of an offence of a minor nature
specified in Sub-clause (2) of the Regulation 11, in case the same pertains
to the violations of set-backs prescribed in the bye laws and since the
respondent 1 herein admittedly while raising the construction in question,
violated the set-backs provided in the permission, the respondent 2 herein
had no power, competence and jurisdiction to compound the offence of
violation of set-backs
OW104/32/2012
6
12. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be significant to refer
hereunder the provisions of sections 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13 & 15 of the Act
being relevant to the controversy:-
Section 4 Control of Development and building operation – No
person shall undertake or carry out the development of any site in any
Municipal Area, local Area, Town Area, Notified Area or Area Notified
under the Jammu and Kashmir State Town Planning Act, 1963, or erect
or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation or lay out any
means of access to a road in such area except with the previous
permission fo the Authority concerned in writing.
Section 5 Application for permission-(1) Every person desiring to
obtain the permission, referred to in Section 4 shall make an application
in writing to the authority or through any agency authorise, in such form
and containing such information as may be prescribed by regulations
made under this Act.
(2) The Authority shall, within a period of 7 days of the receipt of
application under sub-section (1) decline to accept a plan as sufficient for
purposes of granting sanction under this Act if it does not bear the
signature and seal of a Registered Architect or a Draftsman registered
with the Authority.
(3) On receipt of such application the Authority, after making such
enquiry as it considers necessary, keeping in view the area and the laws,
rules and regulations applicable therein, shall by an order in writing,
either grant the permission, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be
specified in the order or refuse to grant such permission, under the State
Town Planning Act, 1963 or any Master Plan.
(4) Where the permission is refused, the grounds of such refusal shall be
communicated to the applicant in writing within a period of 30 days
Section 7 Order of Demolation of Building in certain areas. -(1)
Where the erection or re-erection of any building has been commenced or
is being carried on or has been completed without the permission referred
to in section 4 or in contravention of any condition subject to which any
permission has been granted, the Authority shall issue a notice in writing
calling upon the person to show cause within a period of 48 hours, why
the building should not be altered or demolished as may be deemed
necessary to remove the contravention.
(2) The Authority shall cause the notice to be affixed on the outer door
of some conspicuous part of the building whereupon the notice shall be
deemed to have been duly served upon the owner or the occupier of the
building.
(3) If the person to whom the notice has been given refuses or fails to
show cause within a period specified under sub-section (1) or if after
hearing that person, the Authority is satisfied that the erection or re-
erection of the building is in contravention of the provisions of this
section, the Authority shall by order direct the person to demolish, alter
or pull down the building or part thereof so far as is necessary to remove
OW104/32/2012
7
the contravention within a period not exceeding five days as may be
specified in the order and if the person fails to comply with the direction,
the Authority may itself cause the erection or reerection to be demolished
after the expiry of the said period and may for that purpose use such
Police Force as may be necessary which shall be made available to him
by the Police Department on requisition.
(4) All expenses incurred for such demolition shall be recoverable from
the owner and/or the occupier in the same manner as arrears of land
revenue.
Section 9 Penalties.–(1) Any person who undertakes or carries out the
development of any site or erects or re-erects any building or makes or
extends any excavation or lays out any means of access to a road without
the permission referred to in section 4 or in contravention of any
condition subject to which such permission has been granted 1[or
obstructs the Authority under section 8] shall be punishable with fine
which may extend to ten thousand rupees and in case of continuing
offence, with a further fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for
every day during which such offence continues after conviction for the
first commission of the offence.
(2) Any person who obstructs the entry of a person authorised under
section 6 to enter into or upon any building or land or molests such
person after such entry shall be punishable with fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees
(3) If the person committing an offence under this Act, is a company,
every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge
of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business
of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of
the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any
such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves
that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) where an
offence under this Act, has been committed by a company and it is
proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director
or manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of
that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly.
Explanation:–For the purpose of this section
(a) “Company” means a body corporate and includes a firm or other
association of individuals;
(b) “Director” in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm
Section 12- Powers to stop building operation and removal of
persons thereof.- (1)Where any building operation has been commenced
or is being carried on in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any
rule, or regulation laws made thereunder, or without the permission
referred to in section 4 but such erection has not been completed, the
OW104/32/2012
8
Authority may by a written notice require that such building operations
be discontinued on and from the date of the service of the notice
(2) Where such building operations are not discontinued, the Authority
may direct all persons engaged in any capacity in the work of erecting or
re-erecting building in question or part thereof to remove themselves and
shall take such measures as will prevent such persons from again entering
into or remaining will prevent such persons from again entering into or
remaining upon such building or part thereof except with a proper
permission which may be issued by the Authority.
(3) Where such building operations are not discontinued even after
issuance of directions under sub-section (2) the Authority may require
any Police Officer to remove the persons by whom the erection of the
building has been commenced and all his assistants and workmen from
the place of the building, within such time as may be specified in the
requisition and, such Police Officer shall comply with requisition
accordingly.
(4) No person shall be entitled to any compensation for any damage,
which he may sustain in consequence of the discontinuance of the
erection or re-erection of any building.
(5) All expenditure incurred in the enforcement of the provisions of this
section shall be recoverable from the person concerned.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section, the building operation shall
include erection or re-erection of any building or any development or the
engineering operation in any area.
Section 13 Appeals (1) An appeal against the order of an Authority
made under [section 5 or] section 7 shall lie to such person as the
Government may by notification in the Government Gazette, appoint in
this behalf (hereinafter called „the Appellate Officer‟) within seven days
after the date of the aforesaid order of the Authority. The memorandum
of appeal need not be accompanied by copy of order appealed from.
(2) Where any appeal is preferred from an order of an Authority, the
appellate officer shall not stay the enforcement of that order unless the
Authority concerned is given an opportunity of being heard
Provided that where the erection or re-erection of any building
was not completed on the day on which an order was made under section
7 for the demolition of such building the appellate officer shall not make
any order for the stay of enforcement of such order unless such security,
as may be sufficient in the opinion of the appellate officer, has been
given by the appellant for not proceeding with such construction, erection
or work pending the disposal of appeal.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate
officer as expeditiously as possible.
(4) The costs of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of
the appellate officer
Section 15 Finality of orders.–Save as otherwise provided in this Act
every order made by an Authority or the appellate officer shall be final
and shall not be called in question in any suit, application or execution
proceeding.”
OW104/32/2012
9
13. Regulations 10 and 11 of the Regulations of 1998 framed under Section 19
of the Act 1988 being also relevant to the controversy, are reproduced here
under:
“10. Appeals:-(i) An appeal against the order of the authority
made under section 5 and 7 of the Act shall lie before the
Chairman of the J&K Special Tribunal or such other member of
the said Tribunal, as may be decided by the Chairman.
“11. (1) The appellate Authority may compound a offence of a
minor nature specified in sub-clause (2) of these Regulations.
Provided that the compounding fee shall be worked out on
the basis of rates to be notified by the Government
(2) For the purpose of these Regulations an offence of a minor
nature shall include any erection or re-erection of the building
which has taken place in violation of permission referred in
Section 4 of the Act or deemed permission as referred in sub-
clause (2) of clause (7) of these Regulations provided that such
erection or re-erection:
(i) does not violate the approved land use of area as
notified in the Master Plan or Town Planning scheme ;
(ii) does not violate the permissible front, rear or side set-backs
prescribed in the bye-laws ;
(iii) does not violate by more than 10% the permissible grounds
coverage as prescribed in the bye-laws ; and
(iv) does not violate the permissible height of the building as
prescribed in the bye-laws.”
14. Having regard to the aforesaid provisions of Act and the Regulation, it is
manifest that an appeal is provided under Section 13, read with Regulation
10 supra, available to an aggrieved person/party against an order passed
by the Authority under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act. It is also evident that
under Regulation 11 supra the Appellate Authority under the Act is vested
with the power to compound an offences of minor in nature referred in
Sub-clause (2) of the said Regulation and provided under Section 9 supra
of the Act, which not only defines the offence therein the said section but
also provides for a punishment for commission of such an offence also
OW104/32/2012
10
referred in under Sub-clause (2) of the Regulation 11 supra, which is
permissible to be compounded by the Appellate Authority.
15 In so far as appeal filed against an order issued under Sections 5 and 7 of
the Act is concerned, the Appellate Authority has been vested with an
absolute power to decide such an appeal in tune with the provisions of
Section 13 thereof as expeditiously as possible with a discretion to the
Appellate Authority to impose costs thereof as well not connected with the
power of compounding of an offence referred in Section 9 and Regulation
11 supra.
16. In view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the plea of the
counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority respondent-2 herein
could not have compounded the construction in question raised by the
respondent 1 herein being not of a minor nature in presence of sub-clause
(2) of the Regulation 11 supra, is grossly misconceived and not attracted
or applicable to the case initiated against respondent 1 herein under
Section 7 of the Act, in that, the said Regulation as has been noticed in the
preceding paras specifically provides for compounding of the offences,
provided under Section 9 supra and order issued under Sections 5 and 7 of
the Act.
17. Having held above that the provisions of Sub-clause (2) of the Regulation
11 supra is not attracted and applicable to the case in hand, the next
question which arises for consideration of this Court would be as to
whether the, respondent 2 herein committed any error, perversity,
illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned order and as to
OW104/32/2012
11
whether the same is amendable to supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
and enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
18. It is an admitted fact as has been noticed in the preceding paras that after
the issuance of notice under Section 7(1) and demolition order under
Section 7(3) of the Act by the petitioner herein against the respondent 1
herein, the respondent 1 herein preferred the statutory appeal before the
respondent 2 herein and upon consideration of the said appeal as also the
violations detailed out therein in the said demolition order as also after
hearing the counsels for the parties being the petitioner and respondent 1
herein, the respondent 2 herein opined in order dated 26.03.2012 that the
appellant-respondent 1 herein has not committed any violation at that
stage of the construction having taken into consideration, in particular, the
violations alleged by the respondent petitioner herein qua the raising of
column structures by the appellant, respondent 1 herein and consequently
allowed the appellant respondent 1 herein to raise the construction strictly
as per the building permission granted.
It is also an admitted fact that the said order dated 26.03.2012 and
aforesaid findings recorded therein respondent 2 herein have never been
called in question by the petitioner herein, so much so even after the
respondent 1 herein raised construction pursuant to the said order dated
26.03.2012 passed by the respondent 2 herein, the petitioner herein never
reported to the respondent 2 herein any violation committed in raising
such construction by the respondent 1 herein and ironically also did not
proceed against the respondent 1 herein for any such violation or else even
OW104/32/2012
12
for stopped the construction, if it had found raising of said construction in
breach of the permission. The petitioner herein instead seemingly has
remained quite contended with the order passed by the 26.03.2012 by
respondent 2 herein and allowed the respondent 1 herein to raise the
construction least caring as to whether the construction is raised in
accordance with the sanctioned plan or in breach thereof and waited till
the final disposal of the appeal by the respondent 2 herein and thereafter
assailed the final order of respondent 2 herein before this Court in the
instant petition.
19. In view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the petitioner
herein cannot be said to have any justification to either complain about the
construction raised by the respondent 1 herein or to the impugned order
passed by respondent No. 2 herein, more so having regard to the
provisions of Section 15 (supra) of the Act, which provides for finality of
the orders of Appellate Authority as it will not be appropriate otherwise
for this Court to reopen and re-appreciate of determination of facts
undertaken and concluded by the respondent 2 herein in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, the exercise whereof is guided and
regulated by the parameters set out by the Apex Court in series of
judgments including in case tilted, as Shalini Shyam Shetty and another
v Rajender Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, wherein it has
been inter alia held as under:
“On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the
following principles on the exercise of High Court’s
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be
formulated:
OW104/32/2012
13
(a) ……
(b)…….
(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its
power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts
inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a
Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal
subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode
of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a
restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
(d) …..
(e) ………
(f) …….
(g) ……..
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court
cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just
because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or
Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the
jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.
(i) ……….
(j) ………
(k) ……..
(l) ………
(m) …….
(n) ………
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be
counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of
its strength and vitality.”
20. Even otherwise also, it is stated that the construction in question is almost
completed and on such pulling down of the construction now at this stage
may not be appropriate, more so, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case as also in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court passed in case tilted as Kewal Krishan Gupta vs. J&K Special
Tribunal and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 2578, wherein it has been
inter alia held that the pace of rapid growth of industrial development also
OW104/32/2012
14
makes it necessary not to permit demolition of a structure even if, it will
be in contravention with the Act or the Zoning provisions.
A further reference to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed
in case titled as Administrator Municipality Jammu vs M/s K. C.
Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in AIR 1995 JKJ 85 would also be
relevant and germane herein, wherein at para 20 following has been laid
down:-
” in this appeal, we are not expected to go into a question of
fact as to what sort of violation has been committed in raising
of construction, and if any, whether it was as pre-sanctioned
plan or revised plan, and whether it was minor or major in
nature. All these things have been well considered by the
Tribunal, which was required to go into such questions. The
Tribunal has after a thorough inquiry come to the conclusions
on a question of fact and recorded a finding about the nature
of the violation, and regularized it under law by
compounding the same. The Tribunal, in our opinion, is fully
competent to compound the violation, Keeping in view its
nature, and if it is so, the learned single Judge has not erred in
upholding the findings of the Tribunal. The learned single
Judge also appears to have considered the matter in its
entirety in coming to the conclusion that the violations were
of minor nature. As a matter of fact, strictly speaking, the
writ jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked in
such mattes, as the dispute was in substance relating to a
question of fact. The Tribunal is the final arbiter in such
matters. It appears to us a unique case where the Municipality
itself has filed a writ petition against the order of Tribunal,
perhaps to cover up its lapses and omissions/commissions.
The writ jurisdiction is invoked mainly where fundamental
rights are infringed. However, for violating of legal rights
too, such jurisdiction may be invoked provided alternate
remedy is not available. In the present case, the alternate
remedy has already been availed of and even then on a
disputed question of fact writ jurisdiction is sought to be
invoked. Not only, that, now Letters Patent appeal too has
been filed and at the expenses of badly needed funds of the
Municipality. It appears to us to be a litigation of attrition
only for the purpose known to the Municipality only.”
OW104/32/2012
15
21. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment relied upon by the counsel
for the petitioner herein passed in case tilted as Building Operating
Controlling Authority vs. Mangal Dass and anr, passed in OWP No.
481/2012 and decided 16.02.2023 does not lend any support to the case to
the petitioner, insofar as the applicability of Regulation 11(2) to the case in
hand is concerned. Insofar as the judgments tilted as Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others vs M/s Sunbeam High Tech
Developers Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2019 SC 5435, in case titled as Royal
Paradises Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v State of Haryana reported in 2006 7 SCC 597,
in case tilted as Deepak Kumar Mukherji vs. Kolkata Municipal
Corporation and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 336 and in case titled as
Priyanka State International Pvt. Ltd. and anr. v/s State of Assam and
others, (2010) 2 SCC 27 are concerned, the same are also quite
distinguishable from the issues involved in the case in hand, in that, the said
judgments pertain to the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation
Act, Goa Municipal Act, Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and Punjab
Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated
Development) Act, 1963 and per se do not lend any support to the case set
up by the petitioner herein in the instant petition.
22. It is also significant to mention here that before the signing of the instant
judgment, the counsel for the petitioner yet again as a last attempt furnished
a copy of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case titled as Rajendra
Kumar Barjatya and Anr. vs. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and
others, decided on 17.12.2024 in support of the case of the petitioner herein,
OW104/32/2012
16
however, a bare perusal of the said judgment of the Apex Court would
manifestly tend to show that the same as well is not lending any support to
the case of the petitioner herein, in that, the case in the said judgment of the
Apex Court has been a case of unauthorised construction i.e. without any
permission and on the contrary, in the case in hand, the respondent 1 has
obtained a valid permission for raising construction, however, in the
process deviated therefrom, thus not being a case of no permission.
23. Viewed thus, what has been observed, considered and analysed hereinabove,
the instant petition fails and is dismissed with a costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be
deposited by the petitioner herein before Registrar Judicial of this Court
within two weeks‟ time.
24. The record produced by the counsel for the petitioner herein is returned back
in the open court.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
Jammu
12.12.2024
Javid Iqbal
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
KARAM CHAND
2024.12.24 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document