The central legal point established is the requirement for adherence to the principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings, emphasizing the right of parties to be heard before a decision is made.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioners have challenged notices bearing No.SMC/Enf/W/1051-55 dated 25.10.2022 and SMC/Enf/W/1091-95 dated 28.10.2022, as also order dated 14.11.2022 passed by respondent No.1, whereby respondents No.8 and 9 have been impleaded as parties to the appeal filed by the petitioners. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 01.12.2022 passed by respondent No.1, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against the impugned notices has been dismissed and certain other directions have been passed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

3. The case projected by the petitioners is that they are owners in possession of land measuring 05 kanals 17 marlas falling under Khasra No.1521 situated at Rambirgarh Partabgarh, out of which petitioner No.2 has sold 06 marlas whereas rest of the land is under their ownership and possession. It is claimed that the aforesaid land is located outside the limits of Srinagar Municipal Corporation and, as such, after obtaining permission from the concerned Block Development Officer in terms of provisions of Panchayati Raj Act, the petitioners constructed a one storied building on the land in question. It seems that some interference was caused by Srinagar Municipal Corporation in raising of construction and in this regard two separate suits came to be filed by the petitioners before the Court of 1st Civil Subordinate Judge(Municipal Magistrate), Srinagar, in which certain interim orders came to be passed by the said Court. It also appears that respondents No.8 and 9 also filed a civil suit before 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, against the petitioners, wherein an interim order has been passed, whereby the petitioners have been restrained from raising any unauthorized/illegal construction on spot, which includes the land under Khasra No.1521.

4. While the civil litigation was going on, impugned notice dated 25.10.2022 came to be issued by respondent No.4 in terms of Section 253(1) of the J&K Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, whereby the petitioners were asked to show cause as to why the construction raised in contravention of provisions of the Act be not demolished. Thereafter impugned notice dated 28.10.2022 came to be issued by respondent No.4 whereby the petitioners were directed to demolish the illegal/unauthorized construction.

5. The petitioners challenged the demolition notice dated 28.10.2022 before the J&K Special Tribunal by way of an appeal in terms of Section 253 of the J&K Municipal Corporation Act, 2000. The said appeal has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 01.12.2022 and the interim order regarding maintenance of status quo, that was initially passed in the appeal, has been vacated. Certain other directions have also been extended by respondent No.1.

6. Although a number of grounds have been urged by the petitioners in the writ petition impugning the JUDGMENT of respondent No.1 and the notice of demolition, yet the main thrust of argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners was on the fact that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned JUDGMENT without adhering to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioners were not heard at all before deciding their appeal. It has been submitted that on the date when the appeal was reserved for judgment, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was not present and, in fact, none of the parties was present before the Tribunal, as is clear from the minutes of the proceedings dated 21.11.2022. The learned counsel has further submitted that the application of respondents No.8 and 9 for impleadment has been allowed by respondent No.1, without hearing the petitioners, on a date when the case was not fixed before it.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.8 and 9 has submitted that there has been suppression of material facts by the petitioners before the Tribunal because they have not referred to the civil litigation that was going on in