The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inaction of the respondents in denying a similar treatment to the petitioners as other plot holders who had obtained plots in exchange and raised constructions was arbitrary and discriminatory.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners herein through the medium of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution implores for the following relief:-

A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioners enabling them to approach Building Operations Controlling Authority having jurisdiction over the area for grant of permission to raise construction on the subject land in accordance with the plans approved and sanctioned by the Authority.

2. The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties and the record appended thereto being relevant to the controversy involved in the instant petition would reveal that a notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Town Planning and Improvement Act by respondent 1 herein was published in the Government Gazette dated 26 Sawan 1996 (10.08.1939) signifying the intention of the Government to frame a Scheme for the extension, development and improvement of certain areas mentioned in the notification including the Pahalgam Town Area. Subsequently, the said notification was directed to be as one issued under Section 8 of the Town Planning Act in terms of Section (1) of Jammu and Kashmir Town Planning Act SVT 1997 (1940 A.D).

3. On 30.04.1943 the respondent 1 herein took a policy decision to take over the plots of land owned by private individuals on the plateau and valley of Pahalgam in exchange at different places within Pahalgam Town treating and recording the taken over of plots of land as “Khalsa Sarkar” in the revenue records and the plots of land proposed to be given in exchange to be excluded from the forest area and to form a separate village subject to the payment of land at regular rates.

4. Out of total number of plot holders being 92, persons namely Pt. Sham Lal But Harkara, Pt. Jia LalJalali, Pran Nath Jalali, Kh. Ghulam Mohd Mir, Kh. Abdul Rehman Vaid and Raizada Jaswant Singh (Mehta Sri Chand) agreed to offer exchange of their proprietary land with that of the proposed land offered by the respondent 1 herein.

5. The said proposal came to be forwarded by respondent 1 herein to the Council and upon approval, same culminated into issuance of Government order No. 60/C of 1944 dated 10.01.1944, in terms whereof besides, others the aforesaid plot holders were allotted plots bearing 26, 27, 28, 28/A and 29 situated on the new Forest Road Hospital site at Nunwan Pahalgam and the possession of the said exchange of plots came to be accepted by the said persons reflected in the said order dated 10.01.1944 itself.

6. In the year 1959 the aforesaid persons transferred their respective plots of land in favour of Dr. Karan Singh S/o Late Late Maharaja Hari Singh R/o Gupkar Road, Srinagar, which transfer came to be permitted by the Government and in terms of Government order No. 372 of 1962 dated 04.11.1962, the said plots of land were directed to be recorded in the name of Dr. Karan Singh as its owner and consequently necessary changes were effected in the revenue records vide Mutation No. 355 dated 14.07.1976 in the plots of land and Khasra No. 493, 495, 496 & 627 were allotted to the said plots of land.

7. The said Dr. Karan Singh, however, sold the land in question to the petitioners herein by virtue of sale deeds executed and registered on 11.05.2015 and 28.08.2015, as a consequence whereof, the possession of land was handed over to the petitioners and a mutation order Nos. 534, 425, 428, 529 & 530 came to be attested in the relevant revenue records.

8. The petitioners intended to raise construction over the said land and claimed to have represented before the respondents for grant of “No Objection Certificate” being a pre-requisite for applying and obtaining a building permission from the authority competent to issue the said permission under the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988.

9. The land in question came to be demarcated in the month of October, 2016, by a joint team of Revenue and Forest officials headed by