Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
M A CHOWDHARY
Som Nath, S/O Sh. Amar Nath – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner/Secretary Housing and Urban Development Dep – Respondent
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
The Executive Officer lacked jurisdiction to compound building violations, which must be addressed by the Municipal Committee under the applicable laws.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to compound minor construction violations, emphasizing the importance of administrative finality in factual disputes and limiting high court intervention.
The court emphasized that it cannot go into disputed questions of fact while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and highlighted the finality of orders and the bar on j....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Control of Building Operations Act, particularly regarding the authority to challenge judgments and the....
The Tribunal has the authority to regularize minor violations of building regulations, and the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating factual determinations made by lo....
The Tribunal has the authority to compound minor building violations, and its findings on such matters are final, especially when the petitioner fails to act on submitted revised plans.
A writ petition challenging local authority actions is not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies are available, especially if a related appeal is pending.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the concerned authority of Bally Municipality is not empowered to regularize deviations made dehors the sanctioned plan under Section 218 of t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
