Jammu and Kashmir High Court
OWP/114/2012 of AVTAR KRISHAN Vs J AND K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS. on 30 December 2022
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU OWP No. 114/2012 Avtar Krishan …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navyug Sethi, Advocate Vs J&K Special Tribunal and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Rajneesh Raina, Advocate Mr. D. S.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKHAT JAMMU
OWP No. 114/2012
Avtar Krishan
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navyug Sethi, Advocate
Vs
.…. Respondent(s)
J&K Special Tribunal and others
Through: Mr. Rajneesh Raina, Advocate Mr. D. S. Saini, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
IA No. 1869/2013
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the applicant, namely, Raj Kumar is impleaded as party respondent-5 in the petition. Registry to update the index.
Application is, accordingly, disposed of.
OWP No. 114/2012
The petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved of order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu ( for short the Tribunal), by virtue of which the notice impugned in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.1, has been quashed and respondent Nos.2 to 4 have been directed to start revise proceedings against the property under reference.
A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent-JMC had issued Order 7(3) under the J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 against the petitioner and in the said appeal one motion was laid by Raj Kumar to intervene in the said appeal on the ground that the notice has been issued to the tenant, whereas the said person is not eligible to contest the appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter can be remanded to the Tribunal and the said Raj Kumar may be permitted to intervene.
Mr. Rajneesh Raina, Advocate is not averse to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Ṣ. Saini, Advocate has also agreed to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the fact that the learned Tribunal is not to decide the dispute with regard to the title of the property, over which the construction has been raised but only to decide whether the construction has been raised in accordance with Municipal laws, therefore, we set-aside the order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter back. The Tribunal shall proceed ahead in accordance with law, so as to determine whether the construction raised on spot is in violation of Municipal laws or not.
Disposed of.
Jammu 30.12.2022 Shammi
(Puneet Gupta) Judge
(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge