Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Mohammad Shaban Ghulam vs State Of J&K; & Ors. on 5 February, 2018

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

Serial No.34
Regular List
                          HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                                    AT SRINAGAR

       OWP No.2125/2017
                                                                   Date of Order:05.02.2018
             Mohammad Shaban Ghulam            Vs.        State of J&K & ors.
       Coram:
                        Hon'ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge.
       Appearance:
       For the Petitioner(s): Mr. F.A.Wani, Advocate
       For the Respondent(s): Mr. M.A.Beigh, AAG for 1

Mr. Moomin Khan, Advocate for 2-6 None for 7 Mr. I.Sofi, Advocate for 8-10

i) Whether approved for reporting in : Yes/No Law/journal

ii) Whether approved for publication in press/media: : Yes/No

1) Impugned in this writ petition is order dated 06.12.2017, passed by J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar in File No.STS/5054/17 titled Muzaffar Bashir and Ors v. Commissioner Srinagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

2) Briefly stated the facts are, that respondent 8 to 10 raised the construction pursuant to the building permission granted by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation. The writ petitioner, who claims to be the neighbor of respondents 8 to 10, objected to the construction on the ground that the same was being raised by the respondents 8 to 10 in violation of the permission granted by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation. The petitioner claims to have approached the authorities of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation who initiated action against respondents 8-10 by issuing the demolition notice calling upon the respondents 8 to 10 to demolish the offending structure within seven days.

Aggrieved, the respondents 8 to 10 filed an appeal before the J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar. The writ petitioner was on caveat before the said Tribunal. The appeal of the respondents 8 to 10 came up for consideration before the Tribunal on 06.12.2017, when the Tribunal, after hearing respondents 8 to 10 as also the petitioner, who was on caveat, passed the impugned order directing the parties to the appeal to maintain status quo. By virtue of the order impugned itself, the writ petitioner-caveator before the Tribunal, was also directed to come with his reply alongwith documents of his structure and the revenue extracts available on the next date of hearing. The matter was fixed for further consideration on 08.02.2017. It is this order of the Tribunal which has been made subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4) As is apparent, the order impugned is only an interim order passed at the threshold to protect the lis pending adjudication in the appeal. It is further evident from the order impugned that the writ petitioner, who was caveator before the Tribunal, was not only heard on the said date but was also provided opportunity to project his case and also submit his documents. That being so, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is found without merit and is dismissed. However, it is observed that the petitioner, who was caveator before the Tribunal and has been provided an opportunity to project his case as also to produce the record, shall be well within the right to appear before the Tribunal and raise all the contentions which he has raised in this petition.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Srinagar 05.02.2018 Sarveeda OWP No.2125/2017 Page 2 of 2 OWP No.2125/2017 Page 3 of 2