The Executive Officer lacked jurisdiction to compound building violations, which must be addressed by the Municipal Committee under the applicable laws.

JUDGMENT :

01. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of certiorari, quashing the order/office note passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby, the building violations committed by the respondent No. 3 in utter violation of the provisions of Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 and the Control of Building Operation Regulations, 1998 have been compounded and also seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding the official respondents to demolish the illegal construction raised by the respondent No. 3 in violation of the approved building plan.

02. The petitioner in his petition asserts that the petitioner is the owner of a piece of land measuring 3‰ marlas comprising of khasra No. 2789, khata No. 2552/1998 and khewat No. 192/189 situated at ward No. 10 Bhajwal (erstwhile Ward No. 2), within Municipal Committee, Sunderbani, tehsil Sunderbani district Rajouri; that the respondent No. 3 has also a piece of land measuring 4 marlas (1088 sq. ft.) comprised in khasra No. 2789 situated just adjacent to the above mentioned land of the petitioner; that the respondent No. 3 had already existing building over his above mentioned land and the area of the said already existing construction was 384 square feet and he got building plan approved for another 560 sq. feet; that the respondent No. 3 instead of adhering to the approved building plan, raised construction in utter violation of the said approved building plan; that the respondent No. 3, as per the approved building plan, could construct over 560 sq. ft. of his land but he raised construction over 1064 square feet of land and in doing so, he has also encroached upon a portion of the above mentioned land of the petitioner by keeping a gallery towards the land of the petitioner.

03. It is further asserted in the petition that as per the approved building plan, the respondent No. 3 was required to keep front set back of 56 feet and rear set back of 3 feet towards the land of the petitioner but the respondent No. 3 did not keep any set back on any of the side, thereby committing major violation of the approved building plan; that he also installed shutters of the newly constructed shops towards the above mentioned plot of the petitioner; that when the respondent No. 3 violated the approved building plan, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 requesting him to take legal action against the respondent No. 3, who told the petitioner that he had issued notice and further assured that he shall take strict action against the respondent No. 3, but when inspite of the repeated requests of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 did not take any action against the respondent No. 3, the petitioner’s son filed an application under section 6 of the J&K RTI Act, 2009 seeking information about the above mentioned construction raised by the respondent No. 3.

04. It is also pleaded in the petition that from the information supplied by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner came to know that total plot area of the respondent No. 3 was 1088 sq. ft. and the total construction existed on the said land of the respondent No. 3 was 384 sq. ft; that site plan in the year 2013-14 was sanctioned for the construction of 560 sq. ft. but the construction raised on the spot by the respondent No. 3 was shown to be 1064 sq. ft; that the said letter further stated that excess area constructed by respondent No. 3 without sanction was 504 sq. ft. and that the violation of site plan committed by respondent No. 3 was compounded by imposing a fine of Rs. 2000/- on the respondent No. 3, without mentioning of any provision under which the above mentioned violations had been compounded; that the respondent No. 2 had failed to supply copy of order whereby building violation committed by the respondent No. 3 was compounded which constrained the petitioner’s son to file an appeal under section 16 (1) of the J&K RTI Act, 2009 whereby petitioner received further information vide l