Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rattan Lal vs J&K; Special Tribunal And Others on 2 August, 2017
Author: B. S. Walia
Bench: B. S. Walia
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
Case: APOWP No. 30/2017 in OWP No. 1213/2017, MP No. 01/2017
Date: 02.08.2017
Rattan Lal Vs. J&K Special Tribunal & ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. S. Walia
Appearing counsel:
For petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan, Advocate.
For respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG
Oral.,
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 2 constructed a shed and a bathroom over land belonging to the petitioner without any authority of law or for that matter any permission from the competent authority. A complaint was made by the petitioner to the Municipality, Reasi that the construction by respondent No. 2 over the petitioner's land was without authority of law besides without permission from the Municipality, Reasi whereupon the Municipality, Reasi demolished the construction raised by respondent No. 2 over the petitioner's land. Against the order of demolition of construction raised by respondent No. 2 over the petitioner's land, respondent No. 2 approached the J&K Special Tribunal which passed order dated 14.07.2017 permitting respondent No. 2 to repair the construction as had been demolished/damaged pursuant to the orders of the Municipality, Reasi.
2. Learned counsel contends that the aforementioned orders were passed on appeal filed by respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal without impleading the petitioner as party. On learning about the said orders, the petitioner moved an application for being impleaded as party in the appeal before the Tribunal and also moved an application for pre-ponement of the date of hearing of the appeal and notice on the same has been issued for 10.08.2017.
3. Learned counsel contends that the instant writ petition has been filed, in view of the fact that in terms of orders of the Tribunal passed in favour of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 is continuing with the construction which is to be prejudice of the petitioner. If that be so then in that eventuality the appropriate course of action for the petitioner is to move an application for modification of the interim orders granted by the Tribunal in favour of respondent No. 2. No case warranting interference is made out, in the instant petition. The petitioner is relegated to pursue his remedy before the Tribunal and for which the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition alongwith connected MP(s) is dismissed in the light of the above.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Tribunal be directed to decide the applications filed by the petitioner. Needless to mention, it would always be open to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal and make a request for expeditious decision of the applications filed therein.
( B. S. Walia ) Judge Jammu 02.08.2017 Angita