Back
2012 Supreme(J&K) 406
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar;CJ, Muzaffar Husssain Attar, JJ.
Pahalgam Peoples Welfare Org. -Appellant
Versus
State of J&K & Ors. -Resopndent
IA No. 2649 of 2011 & 2650 of 2011
Decided On : 22-08-2012
Mr. M. A. Beigh, Advocate
Mr. M. I. Qadri, Advocate
Mr. Shah Aamir, Advocate
Unauthorized construction activities by public bodies are unacceptable under the law, and tenants in unauthorized buildings have no standing to seek relief.
Headnote:
Impleadment - Unauthorized Construction - The court dismissed the applications seeking impleadment and direction to allow laying of RCC slab or tin roof over a building constructed without obtaining sanction from the Pahalgam Development Authority, emphasizing that unauthorized construction activities by public bodies are unacceptable under the law.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought impleadment and direction to lay RCC slab or tin roof over a building constructed without obtaining sanction from the Pahalgam Development Authority. The building was constructed by the Municipal Committee, Pahalgam without proper authorization.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed both applications, stating that the unauthorized construction by the Municipal Committee, Pahalgam was unacceptable. The court emphasized that the applicant, being a tenant in the unauthorized building, had no standing to seek relief, especially when the Municipal Committee's own application had been dismissed.
Issues: Unauthorized construction, Impleadment, Locus standi
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unauthorized construction activities by public bodies are unacceptable under the law. The court also emphasized that a mere tenant in an unauthorized building has no standing to seek relief.
Final Decision: Both applications seeking impleadment and direction for laying RCC slab or tin roof over the unauthorized building were dismissed.
These are two applications seeking impleadment of the applicant as party respondent in the writ petition and praying for issuance of direction to the Pahalgam Development Authority to allow the applicants to lay RCC slab over the building or lay tin roof over the same. The applicants are the tenants in the building belonging to the Municipal Committee, Pahalgam. The learned Principal District Judge has reported that the building was constructed by the Municipal Committee, Pahalgam without obtaining sanction to the building and site plan from PDA. The Municipal Committee, Pahalgam was not able to produce any permission authorizing them to raise such construction. An application filed by the Municipal Committee, Pahalgam with a similar prayer, has been dismissed on the basis of the report submitted by the learned Principal District Judge. The CEO/PDA has also apprised to the learned District Judge that the construction has been raised in place of old shopping complex which was gutted in fire about four years back. The 1st floor of the shopping complex so constructed is without any roof which has affected the shops situated on the ground floor. Mr. Vakil, learned counsel for the Municipal Committee, Pahalgam has not been able to rebut the report of the learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag that the construction has been raised without securing sanction to the site plan from the Pahalgam Development Authority. It is unfortunate that public bodies like the Municipal Committee, Pahalgam is resorting to un-authorise construction activities by passing the provisions of law. The applicant, who is merely a tenant in the building un-authroisedly constructed, cannot have any locus standi to apply for the relief particularly when the application of the Municipal Committee, Pahalgam itself has been dismissed.
2. Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Urban Development Department, Srinagar for further necessary action. A copy of the order may also be furnished to the learned Advocate General.
