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

2024 Supreme(J&K) 398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU 
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Building Operation Controlling Authority. – Appellant
Versus
Sudesh Khajuria S/o Sh. Lok Nath Khajuria – Respondent 
OW104/32 of 2012 
Decided on : 12-12-2024


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Harshwardan Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate

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 lower tribunals.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - J&K Building Operation Controlling Authority Act, 1988 - Sections 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 15 - Petition challenging the order of the J&K Special Tribunal allowing construction despite violations of sanctioned plans - The Tribunal found no violation at the initial stage of construction and regularized the violations, allowing compounding fees. (Paras 1, 7, 16, 23)

(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot interfere with factual determinations made by lower tribunals unless there is an error of law or fact. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, BOCA, challenged the Tribunal's order that allowed the respondent to continue construction despite alleged violations of building regulations. The Tribunal found that the construction was at an initial stage and did not violate the sanctioned plan.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order was upheld, and the petition was dismissed as the violations were deemed minor and regularized.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in regularizing the violations and whether the High Court could intervene in the Tribunal's factual findings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction to regularize minor violations and that the High Court should not re-evaluate factual determinations made by the Tribunal.

Result: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

1. The instant petition has been filed by the Building Operation Controlling Authority, Jammu (for short BOCA), against order dated 24.08.2012 (for short the impugned order) passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu respondent 2 herein while invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (previously Sections 103 and 104 of the Constitution of J&K).

2. The facts emanating from the record would reveal that the respondent herein intended to raise construction of a residential-cum-commercial complex and for the said purpose had applied to BOCA for grant of permission somewhere in the year 2009, whereupon the BOCA in terms of order No. 1914/BS/2009 dated 21.11.2009 granted permission in favour of the respondent herein as follows:

a) Building norms to be followed while construction:

i) …..

ii) ……

iii) ……

iv) ……

v) Construction of Basement floor with height 8”-0” upto Slab -855 Sft.

vi) Construction of the plinth for Residential Block -2180 Sft.

b) After construction of structure as per conditions at (a) the applicant shall get the same inspected to check the violation if any, so as to consider the stage 2nd construction with construction of commercial hall over basement and superstructure of G.F for residential use.

c) Accordingly stage 3rd construction of 1st floor & 2nd floors shall be granted by the Jammu Municipal Corporation.

d) The applicant has submitted the affidavit No. L454837 dated 19.11.2009, stating that he will construct the building as per the approved building plans of BOCA/JMC and will not violate the use of building. In case of any violation Jammu Municipal Corporation shall have every right to demolish the violated portion of the construction.

3. After commencing construction pursuant to permission dated 21.11.2009, the respondent 1 herein came to be served with a notice bearing No. MJ/CEO/47/1/2012 dated 15.02.2012 by the 'BOCA under Section 7(1) of J&K Building Operation Controlling Authority BOCA (for short “the Act”) providing therein that as per the report of the Khalifwarzi Inspector dated 13.02.2012, unauthorized construction with the violation of erecting 14 Nos. of RCC pillars was in progress against approved plan, requiring the respondent 1 herein to show cause within period 48 hrs from the date of the service of the notice as to why violation be not demolished.

4. The aforesaid notice dated 15.02.2012 was also followed by a simultaneous notice issued by the BOCA against the respondent 1 herein dated 15.02.2012 under in terms of provisions Section 12 (1) of the Act of1988 calling upon respondent 1 herein to discontinue with the construction in question.

5. The respondent 1 herein responded to the aforesaid notice by filing the written reply, stating therein that there has been no violation committed in raising the construction, as such, the notice/s be withdrawn in response whereof, the BOCA issued a demolition order No.MJ/CEO 47/3/2011 dated 16.03.2012 detailing out the violation alleged to have been committed by the respondent 1 in raising the construction in question and directed the respondent 1 herein to demolish the said construction within a period of 5 days from the date of service of the notice.

6. Aggrieved of the said demolish order dated 16.03.2012, the respondent 1 herein preferred a statutory appeal against the order of demolition dated 16.03.2012, before the respondent 2 herein on 26th of March 2012 in which appeal, the respondent 2 herein passed an order on 26.03.2012, after hearing the preliminary arguments of the appearing counsels for the parties being the petitioner herein and respondent herein 1 herein observing therein that since the construction is at initial stage of columns, the appellant respondent 1 herein has not committed any violation of sanctioned plan and allowed the appellant respondent herein 1 to raise structure strictly as per building permission granted to him and also directed the respondent therein being the petit

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