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

2024 Supreme(JK) 452

S. No. 13 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAK H AT JAMM U CM No. 4987/2021
1. Suresh Kumar, age 64 years S/o Sh. Chaman Lal, R/o H.No. 01, KC Enclave, Near KC Public School, Akhnoor Road, Jammu.
2. Madan Lal, age 62 years S/o Sh. Sain Dass, R/o 32/2 Shyam Vihar, Agriculture Complex Road, Talab Tillo, Jammu.
3. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, age 57 years S/o Sh Chaman Lal, R/o H.No. 02, KC Enclave, Near KC Pubic School, Akhnoor Road, Jammu.
4. Raj Kumar Bhagat, age 51 years S/o Sh. Shiv Ram, R/o H.No. 34, KC or Colony Muthi, Akhnoor Road, Jammu. …..Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. S K Anand, Advocate V s
1. Union of India through the Administrative Commandant, Station Headquarter, Domana, Jammu C/O 56 APO
2. Officer Commanding, 64 Field Workshop Coy, Poonch Lines, Jammu.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Wazarat Road, Jammu. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDG E

The absence of a valid declaration and Sketch Plan under the Works of Defence Act, 1903, renders any interference with construction activities unlawful.

Headnote:(A) Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Sections 3 and 4 - Petition under Article 226 - Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for the provision of a Sketch Plan regarding land under the Prohibition Clause - Respondents obstructed construction on the grounds of unauthorized proximity to military establishments - Court found no valid declaration or Sketch Plan provided by respondents, thus ruling interference unlawful. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that without a proper declaration and Sketch Plan, the respondents lacked authority to interfere with the petitioners' construction activities. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners purchased land in Jammu and faced obstruction from respondents claiming construction was prohibited under the Works of Defence Act, 1903, without proper documentation.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the respondents could not interfere with the petitioners' rights without following legal procedures, as no valid declaration or Sketch Plan was provided.

Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents had the authority to obstruct construction and the validity of the declaration made under the Works of Defence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a proper declaration and Sketch Plan meant the respondents had no jurisdiction to interfere with the petitioners' construction activities.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

01. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

i) All the present writ petition.

ii) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of MANDAMUS directing and commanding the respondents to furnish copy of the Sketch Pan prepared in pursuance to Section 3 of the Works of Defenct Act, 1903 to the petitioners with regard to the lands which have come under the Prohibition Clause with regard to Station Headquarter Domana as Notified under Part-B of the Annexure-IV.

iii) Any other relief just and appropriate in the given facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just may also be granted in favour of the petitioners in order to meet the ends of justice.

02. The facts as stated in the petition on the strength of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed are that the petitioners have purchased small parcels of land measuring, 5, 10, 15 and 20 marlas respectively in Revenue Village Paloura, Jammu near 64 Field Workshop Coy on the link road from Udheywala, Gajansoo Road to Mayank Cricket Academy, Akhnoor Road, Jammu and intended to raise construction as well as effect repairs of their residential houses existed on the said parcels of land which raising of construction and effecting repairs came to be obstructed by the respondents, on the premise that raising of construction upon the land in question is prohibited under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 and that despite the respondent-3 herein clarified the issue vide his letter dated 09.01.2021 addressed to the respondents 2 and 3 herein that the Army Station located in an area has to be identified in terms of the NOC/guidelines dated 21.10.2016 issued by the Government of India without stretching the said NOC/guidelines to other areas and also not to cause undue harassment to the civilians in constructing their residential houses on their own land/plots, the respondents continued to cause unnecessary interference to the petitioners into the construction/ renovation activities of their residential houses undertaken by them, thus necessitating the filing of the instant petition before this Court for seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

03. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that the petition raises disputed questions of facts incapable of being adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction and that the petitioners are raising constructions within 100 meters from the outer wall/boundary of the Military establishment without any NOC sought from the Military Authorities and that raising of such constructions is violation of policy laid down by the Government of India contained in letter dated 18.05.2011 and since the petitioners have raised construction unauthorizedly, as such, the said constructions are liable to be demolished, and that the NOC/guidelines dated 21.10.2016 relied upon by the petitioners are under review and cannot be deemed to be applicable and that 64 Field Workshop Coy being adjacent to the constructions in question is a unit under Station Headquarter, Domana approximately 02km away from Brigade Headquarter location and falls within construction prohibited area. Stating further that since 64 Field Workshop Coy is part of the Army Station, Domana and that the petitioner-2 being an ex-State Government employee has managed an approval for raising constructions from Jammu Municipal Corporation while relying on the NOC/guidelines of 2016 and that the clarification furnished by the Additional District Development Commissioner, Jammu contained in letter dated 09.01.2021 are baseless and incorrect based on the NOC/guidelines of 2016 which are under review, and that the response submitted to an application under Right of Information Act, 2009 by one Colonel Rajdeep Thapa that the Sketch Plan of the land upto 100 meters from outer wall of the

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