Expired building permission allows application for extension or fresh sanction under Section 251; prepaid construction fee must be adjusted without forfeiture as unutilized fee lacks quid pro quo.

JUDGMENT :

WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.

01. The petitioner through the medium of the instant petition has sought the following relief(s):

“A) By issuance of writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus, respondents be directed to extend the life of building permission granted in favour of petitioner vide Order No. 2175 of 2016 dated 24-10-2016 further for a period of three years commencing from the date Hon’ble Court passes the order.

B) By issuance of writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus, respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to raise the building strictly as per the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner.

C) By issuance of writ, order or direction respondents be directed not to interfere in the commencement of work undertaken by the petitioner as per the permission granted by the competent authority.

D) Any other order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case.”

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

02. The only grievance which has been projected in the instant petition is that the respondents have failed to grant extension of the building permission in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, a prayer has been made seeking a direction to the respondents to extend the validity of the building permission already granted in favour of the petitioner vide order No. 2175/2016 dated 24.10. 2016 which was valid for a period of three years.

03. In addition, the petitioner has also prayed that he be granted permission to allow the petitioner to raise the building strictly as per the building permission already granted in favour of the petitioner.

04. The instant petition has been preferred by the attorney holder namely Muzaffar Jan Pattoo on behalf of Mr. Mohammad Subhan Yatoo for redressal of grievances and enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights.

05. It has been urged by the petitioner in the instant petition that by virtue of General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner took possession of the property in the shape of land measuring 3 kanals falling under Survey No. 727 Min, Khewat No. 105 and khata No. 742 situated at Mousa Baghat Barzullah Tehsil Chanapora Natipora, District Srinagar Kashmir.

06. The further case of the petitioner is that he being the lawful attorney, thereafter applied before the competent authority for building permission which was subsequently granted vide Order No. 2175 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016.

07. It has been further submitted that the petitioner could not act upon the said building permission and undertake construction of the said building owing to the fact that the Valley was in a state of turmoil in the year 2016. Subsequently, due to the prevailing conditions in the Valley, the petitioner faced financial constraints in raising the said structure. The said situation was further aggravated by the abrogation of Article 370 followed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the overall circumstances prevented the petitioner from undertaking construction at the site.

08. The petitioner further prayed that, for obtaining the aforesaid permission in 2016, the petitioner had already deposited the construction fee amounting