SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(J&K) 607

JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Mohammad Ismail Beigh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Smc & Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.1959 of 2022
Decided On : 08-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sofi Manzoor, Advocate, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent

The finality of the order of demolition made by the Commissioner and the applicability of Bye-law No.2.1.2(c) of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (Building) Bye-Laws, 2011 were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Unauthorized Building - Municipal Corporation Act - 253(1) - [Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, Section 253(1)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, particularly Section 253(1), and Bye-law No.2.1.2(c) of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (Building) Bye-Laws, 2011. The court highlighted that the owner may apply for a building permit/regularization if a building is deemed to be 'unauthorized building' solely on account of a building permit not having been obtained prior to commencement of construction and if the said building is in conformity with all provisions of Building Bye-Laws, subject to payment of a penalty of Rs.10,000. The court also emphasized that the order of demolition made by the Commissioner shall be final and conclusive subject only to the order made by the Tribunal on appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, owner of a structure, appealed against a notice of demolition issued by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation for raising a construction without obtaining permission. The Tribunal upheld the demolition order, directing the Corporation to carry out the demolition within 15 days.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had raised the entire construction without building permission and had violated the land use as per the Master Plan. The court concluded that the order of demolition made by the Commissioner was final and conclusive, and there was nothing wrong in the Tribunal directing the Corporation to carry out the demolition.

Issues: The issues involved the legality of the demolition notice, the petitioner's right to approach the Municipal Authorities for compounding of the structure raised without permission, and the applicability of Bye-law No.2.1.2(c) of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (Building) Bye-Laws, 2011.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner could not claim a right to approach the Municipal Authorities for compounding of the structure raised without permission and that the Bye-law No.2.1.2(c) was not attracted in the case. The court also emphasized that the order of demolition made by the Commissioner was final and conclusive, and the Tribunal's decision to uphold the demolition order was justified.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT

1. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question order dated 24th August, 2022, passed by J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar, on an appeal filed by the petitioner against the notice of demolition issued by respondent No.2 under Section 253(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 [the Act].

2. The order aforesaid is assailed, primarily, on the ground that the J&K Special Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order of demolition, could not have directed Srinagar Municipal Corporation to carry out the demolition in terms of the notice upheld by the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even after the dismissal of the appeal, it was open to the petitioner to apply for compounding of the violation or even apply under Regulation No.2.1.2(c) of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (Building) ByeLaws, 2011, for building permit with regard to the constructed building and get the building permission subject, of course, to the fulfilling of the requirements of Rules and Regulations governing the constructions in the Municipal areas of Srinagar Municipal Corporation.

4. In order to appreciate the grounds of challenge raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to set out few facts.

5. The petitioner is owner in possession of a double storeyed structure situated at Tengpora-Byepass, Batamaloo, near Petrol Pump, Srinagar. In the aforesaid structure, the petitioner is carrying on the business of import, sale and distribution of colour coated sheets, GC/GP sheets, fibre glass, TMT bars (iron steels), screw with caps etc. etc. under the name and style of M/S Empire Enterprises. The Municipal Corporation authorities, on finding that the petitioner had raised column structure of ground floor and first floor without obtaining any permission from the authorities, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner which was followed by a notice of demolition dated 18th October, 2021 issued by Chief Enforcement Officer, SMC, under Section 253(1) of the Act. It is this notice which the petitioner assailed by way of an appeal before the J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar.

6. The case set up by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he had not raised any fresh construction and had only repaired the old existing building without making any material structural changes. The appeal was contested by Srinagar Municipal Corporation and it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the entire structure was constructed by the petitioner by erecting columns and by laying slab, which, on the face of it, was a fresh construction. It was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the petitioner had raised entire construction without seeking any building permit from the respondent authorities.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, the Tribunal came to be conclusion that the construction was raised by the petitioner afresh and that the petitioner had not obtained any prior permission from the authorities of Srinagar Municipal Corporation and, therefore, there was no wrong in the demolition notice issued by the Corporation. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal, also provided that Srinagar Municipal Corporation shall ensure carrying out of the demolition notice within 15 days from the receipt of the order.

8. Apart from raising the aforesaid grounds of challenge, the petitioner is, in particular, aggrieved of the operative portion of the order in so far as the Tribunal directs Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, to carry out the demolition under an intimation to the Tribunal within a period of 15 days.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, I am of the view that once the appeal of the petitioner is dismissed by the Tribunal and the order of demolition issued by Srinagar Municipal Corporation is upheld, the petitioner cannot claim to have a right to approach the Municipal Author

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top