IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

LPA 236/2019

CM Nos. 7361/2019,

8681/2019 & 3930/2020 c/w

LPA No. 284/2019

CM Nos. 7579/2020,

8470/2020, 8471/2020

Reserved on: 10.03.2021

Pronounced on: 19 .03.2021

Avtar Singh and another

Satpal Sharma and ors

... Petitioner(s)

Through: -

Mr. Parveen Kapahi Advocate in LPA

No. 236/2019

Mr. Vikas Magotra and Mr. Sachin Sharma

Advocates in LPA No. 284/2019

Vs.

State and ors

…Respondent(s)

Through: -

Mr. Rajnish Raina Advocate for

R-2 to 4.

Mr. Pranav Kohli Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun

Dev Singh Advocate for R-5

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar-J

1

By a common order and judgment dated 19.09.2019, two writ

petitions i.e OWP Nos. 494/2018 and 929/2018, one filed by Avtar

Singh and Vinod Sharma and the other filed by Satpal Sharma and

three others, have been dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court.

Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved, the writ petitioners have filed two

separate Letters Patent Appeals i.e LPA Nos. 236/2019 and 284/2019

which are being disposed of by this common order and judgment.

2

2

Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by the

appellants (writ-petitioners), we deem it appropriate to give brief

resume of factual antecedents, leading to filing of these appeals.

3

The dispute, which was subject matter of adjudication in the twin

writ petitions, relates to a building being House No. 1, Pacca Danga,

Jammu. The appellants before us are the old tenants in the shops on the

ground floor of the said building which is owned by respondent No.5.

As per the appellants, respondent No.5 for the past some time had been

pressing upon them and other tenants in the building to vacate the

premises under their occupation, so that he could rent out these shops to

the new tenants for higher premium and rentals. Having failed to coerce

the appellants into vacation of the said shops under their tenancy,

respondent No.5 devised a plan to get rid the tenants of the shops. As is

the allegation of the appellants, the respondent No.5 in connivance with

the District Administration and the Jammu Municipal Corporation (for

short 8JMC9) Authorities managed to declare the whole building in

which the shops under occupation of the appellants are housed as

unsafe. This was done by the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal

Corporation vide his order No. JM/PS/Com./1640 dated 06.11.2017

whereby the Commissioner granted permission for demolition of the

said building and, as a consequence whereof, the Executive Engineer,

JMC, Division Trikuta Complex, Dogra Hall, Jammu vide a public

notice No. MJ/Tech/T/4636 dated 27.02.2018 notified to all the

occupants of the aforesaid building including the appellants herein to

vacate the premises under their occupation within 15 days so that the

3

operation of demolishing the existing building is carried out on behalf

of the Commissioner, JMC, Jammu.

4

Faced with the aforesaid public notice, the appellants herein filed

two separate writ petitions seeking, inter alia, a Writ of Certiorari for

quashing the order of the Commissioner, JMC Jammu dated

16.11.2017 (supra) and a public notice dated 27.02.2018 (supra) issued

by respondent No.4. They also sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring

the aforesaid building which houses the shops under their tenancy as

safe or at least safe with respect to the shops under the occupation of

the appellants. The appellants also sought a direction to the respondents

not to demolish the said building.

5

The impugned action of JMC was assailed primarily on the

following grounds:

(