High CourtsDivision Bench

Sajad Ahmad Magray vs Commissioner And Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 3 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 J&K CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Mithal, CJ · Vinod Chatterji Koul, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 1065 Of 2021

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 338 words
1.

Heard Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Moomin Khan, learned counsel for Srinagar Municipal Corporation.

2.

The petitioner by the medium of this petition has challenged the order dated 27.05.2021 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar, whereby his

application for interim relief in the pending case has been rejected holding that no good ground has been made out for grant of interim protection.

3.

It appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner was given a show cause notice on 13th March, 2021 regarding alleged unauthorized

construction and finally on 16.03.2021 an order directing to demolish/ pull down the structure within seven days was passed. This order was impugned

before the J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar.

4.

It was submitted before the Tribunal that the petitioner was simply repairing the old roof of the house which was an old construction and, therefore,

no permission was required for it.

5.

Section 244 of the Jammu & Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, in unequivocal terms provide that every person who intends to repair any

building is required to obtain a permission from the authority. The petitioner for the purposes of repairing or replacing the roof has not obtained any

such permission. Moreover, the notice issued to him mentions that the petitioner has undertaken the construction of plinth without permission meaning

thereby that he is raising a new construction. The petitioner has obtained the property vide power of attorney dated 16th June, 2020, and as such, the

submission that it was an old construction is prima facie not acceptable.

6.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality on the part of the Special Tribunal in rejecting the application of the

petitioner for grant of interim direction. The petitioner may approach the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the matter and we hope that the Tribunal

would do its best to decide the matter expeditiously.

7.

The writ petition lacks merit and is disposed of with the above observations.