Building Operation Controlling ... vs Baljit Singh And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1455 j&K

                                                                              Sr. No. 9



        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

CJ Court

Case: OWP No. 1726 of 2012

Building Operation Controlling Authority                   .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

                                 Through :- Sh. S S Nanda, Sr. AAG.
                           v/s

Baljit Singh and another                                            .....Respondent(s)
                                 Through :- None.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

1. Heard Sh. S S Nanda, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for

the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the judgment and

order dated 12.06.2012 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal,

Jammu (for short 'the Tribunal'), by which the appeal of respondent no.1 has

been allowed and the offending constructions have been permitted to be

compounded.

3. The respondent no.1 was given the show-cause notice way-back in the

year 2001. Then an order under Section 7(3) of the Control of Building

Operations Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for the demolition of the offending

structures was issued on the ground that he has constructed one room on the

ground floor which is being used as a shop. Therefore, respondent No.1 has

utilized the residential area for commercial purposes. Secondly, respondent

no.1 has failed to establish his title/ownership over the land in question.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, a commissioner was appointed for

spot inspection who has reported that no commercial activity was being carried

out at the relevant time in the area in dispute and that the structure in question

was being used as a store for keeping household goods, such as, plastic gallons,

tirpal, etc. There was no sign-board which may indicate that it was being used

for any commercial activity.

5. In view of the above, the Tribunal held that there is no evidence of use

of the residential property for commercial purposes and that relinquishment

deed on record ex facie establishes the title and possession of respondent no.1.

6. It may be pertinent to mention here that the authorities under the Act are

only enjoined upon to see that no unauthorized constructions are raised in

violation of the sanctioned plan. It not the obligation of the authorities under

the Act to examine or verify the title of the parties. Therefore also the above

aspect looses significance.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this

petition and the same is dismissed.

                              (MOHAN LAL)             (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                   JUDGE                 CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
12.11.2021
Abinash