Advocates:
['A K SAWHNEY', '', 'RAJEEV KUMAR SHARMA', 'ADARSH SHARMA']

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

OWP No. 592 of 2010 (O&M)

c/w

OWP No. 249 of 2010 (O&M)

Reserved on: 29.09.2021

Pronounced on: 29.10.2021

Raman Gupta and others

.....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through :- Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with9

Mr. Gagan Kohli, Advocate.

Mr. A. K. Sawhney, Advocate

v/s

State of J&K and others

.....Respondent(s)

Through :- Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1.

Since same order is impugned in both the writ petitions on

identical grounds, as such, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties,

both the petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2.

The petitioners, through the medium of these present petitions,

have impugned the Order No. CEO-KDA/K/01-07/2010 dated 04.01.2010

(herein-after to be referred as 8the order impugned9) passed by the respondents,

by virtue of which, Building Operations and Control Authority (BOCA) of

Katra Development Authority has fixed fee @ Rs. 70/- Sft./year for erection of

display add/boards/hoardings on private land. No challenge has been thrown to

the other part of the order levying fee for public land.

Sr. No.

2

OWP No. 592 of 2010 a/w connected matter

3.

Briefly stated the facts necessary for deciding both the writ

petitions are that in one of the petitions, the petitioners claim to be the

proprietors of the advertisement agencies, who hire sites and install hoardings

of their clients where as in the other petition the petitioners claim to be the

owners of the land. They have assailed the order impugned on the grounds that

the BOCA of Katra Development Authority has no jurisdiction to charge any

tax or fee with regard to adds/boards/hoardings displayed on the private lands;

that the rates of fees have been fixed after taking into consideration the rates

applicable in the Jammu Municipal Corporation; that the Municipal

Committee/Corporation is competent and authorized to impose tax and fee on

certain items mentioned in the Municipal Act and the procedure laid down in

the Municipal Act has to be strictly followed for imposing the said fee/tax; that

after the resolution for imposing fees/tax is passed by the Municipal

Committee, subject to conditions laid down by the Government by the issuance

of rules/orders, the said decision has to be communicated to the Government

and then the Government after approving the same has to notify the same in the

Government Gazette and the said tax/fee would be applicable w.e.f. appointed

date; that the order impugned is discriminatory, unfair, unreasonable and

wrong as the publicity material is erected by the owner of the property for

display sometimes for one day, one week, one month, two months etc. and

therefore, the decision to charge fee annually is totally unwarranted, unjustified

and illegal. The petitioners have also placed on record notice dated 08.03.2010

issued by respondent No. 3 whereby petitioner No. 3 has been asked to deposit

the fee as per the approved rates.

4.

Response stands filed by the respondents No. 2 to 4 in which they

have denied that the order impugned is arbitrary, illegal or wrong as it did not

3

OWP No. 592 of 2010 a/w connected matter

affect the right of the petitioners, who are conducting the business in the said

field. The respondents have admitted the issuance of notice to respondent No.3

for depositing requisite fee as per the approved rates. It is submitted that the

BOCA of Katra Development Authority has jurisdiction to charge fee with

regard to adds/boards/hoardings displayed on the private land which fall in the

jurisdiction of Katra Development Authority. The Katra Development

Authority is very much entitled to levy charges in respect of

adds/boards/hoardings displayed on the private lands. There is nothing wron