Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Hassan Shergojri & vs Mohammad Rajab Gojri And Ors on 31 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No.03
REGULAR LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA No. 251/2024
GHULAM HASSAN SHERGOJRI & ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
ORS
Through: Mr. Taha Khalil, Advocate
Vs.
MOHAMMAD RAJAB GOJRI AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ab. Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDE R
31.05.2025
Per Sanjeev Kumar-J (oral):
1. This intra-court appeal by the appellants is directed against an
order and judgment dated 31st August, 2024, passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court ["the writ Court"] in WP (C) No.
45/2022 titled "Mohammad Rajab Gojri, Vs. UT of JK & Ors.",
whereby the writ Court has dismissed the petition filed by the
respondent No. 1 as having been rendered infructuous. It has been
noted by the writ Court that since the permission which was
impugned in the writ petition was valid for a period of two years
and had outlived its life, as such, the writ petition throwing
challenge to said permission had been rendered infructuous.
2. In the appeal before us, the learned counsel for the appellants
restricts his challenge to the impugned order to the extent that writ
Court ought to have at least provided the extension of permission
by the period it remained eclipsed because of interim order of stay
passed by this court
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, we find that vide impugned order and judgment
Arif Hameed dated 31.08.2024 the writ Court has dismissed WP(C) No. 45/2022
filed by the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the appellants cannot
be aggrieved of the same. However, having regard to the limited
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal by providing
as under:
The Municipal Committee, Hajin, which had granted
building permission to the appellants before us vide order
No. MC/H/BP/21/949-50 dated 06.08.2021 shall extend the
permission by a further period of two years.
Ordered accordingly.
4. We have passed this direction keeping in view the fact that the
appellants could not raise their construction in terms of the
permission because of the interim order of stay passed by the
learned Single Judge on 14th January, 2022 in WP (C) No.
45/2022.
5. The aforesaid petition as is evident from the impugned order was
ultimately dismissed. The appellants, therefore, cannot be made to
suffer for something which they have not done. Let the Executive
Officer Municipal Committee issue a formal order of extension of
the permission granted vide order dated 6th August, 2021, by
another two years subject to the terms and conditions contained in
the building permission dated 6th August, 2021.
6. Disposed of.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
31.05.2025
"ARIF"
