Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Inhabitants Of Block Harwan vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 17 October, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 10.10.2025
Pronounced on: 17.10.2025
Uploaded on: 17 .10.2025
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounce: Full Judgment
WP(C) No.688/2025
INHABITANTS OF BLOCK HARWAN
...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ORS.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioners, who are the residents of different
villages of Block Harwan, have filed the instant writ petition
for grant of following reliefs:
By a writ of Mandamus;
(a) declare that J&K Lakes Conservation and
Management Authority does not have any jurisdiction
over Block Harwan (Halqa Fakirgujri A & B, Gandtal,
Syedpora, Theed A&B, Dara A&B).
(b) Direct the respondent No.5 not to create any
interference in the matters which are otherwise
regulated under Panchayati Raj Act, 1989.
By a writ of Certiorari : Quash the impugned notices dated
15.03.2025, 17.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 issued by
respondent No.5 (Annexure-I).
2) It is stated by the petitioners that initially their villages
did not fall within the jurisdiction of respondent No.5 but in
terms of SRO 57 of 1998 dated 16.02.1998, Villages Harwan,
WP(C) No.688/2025 1|Page
Theed, Dara, Murinderbad, Mufti Bagh and Fakirgujri also
came to be included in the substituted list of local areas
within the jurisdiction of respondent No.5. The Government,
while invoking Section 3(3) of the J&K Municipal
Corporation Act, 2000, excluded number of villages
including those of the petitioners from the jurisdiction of
Srinagar Municipal Corporation by virtue of SRO 238 and
239 dated 08.08.2014. After such exclusion, the
Government included Harwan as a Block under the
Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 and, as such, Fakirgujri A&B,
Gandtal, Syedpora, Theed A&B, Dara A&B etc. were
included as Halqas within Block Harwan. In pursuance of
notification issued under Panchayati Raj Act, the petitioners
and other residents of Block Harwan were granted building
permission under Section 12(iv) of Panchayati Raj Act read
with Rule 155 of Panchayati Raj Rules by the competent
authority designated in terms of Government Order No.11-
RD & PR of 2022 dated 22.01.2022. It is further averred that
in the Legislative Assembly, two questions in respect of
unauthorized constructions and permissions in the areas
including those of the petitioners, were raised, which
ultimately came to be referred to the respondent No.5 and
thereafter the respondent No.5 started issuing notices under
Control of Building Operations Act, 1988, alleging violation
of building laws. The petitioners, as such, have impugned
WP(C) No.688/2025 2|Page
the action of the respondent No.5 in respect of action taken
under Control of Building Operations Act, on the premise
that their villages fall beyond the area within the jurisdiction
of respondent No.5 and the power to grant the building
permission vests with the statutory authorities under the
Panchayati Raj Act, 1989. The petitioners have placed on
record the notice and order issued by the respondent No.5
and also some of the building permissions.
3) The respondents in turn have come up with the
response stating therein that the areas regarding which
notices/orders have been issued in respect of illegal and
unauthorized construction, already fall within the
jurisdiction of respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 has not
extended the jurisdiction over these areas as alleged by the
petitioners. The respondents have further stated that in
terms of SRO 57 dated 1.02.1999, the areas of CD Block
Harwan came under the jurisdiction of Jammu and Kashmir
Lake Conservation and Management Authority (for short
"LCMA") and, as such, it is within the domain of LCMA to
regulate the development and constructions in terms of
Control of Building Operations Act, 1988, within its
delineated local jurisdiction and the Enforcement Wing of
the Authority supervises and monitors that only
permitted/sanctioned constructions in the jurisdiction of
WP(C) No.688/2025 3|Page
LCMA are carried out and in case any person who intends to
construct any residential, commercial building or to carry
out any renovation, repairs etc. in the delineated area of
LCMA, he has to file an online application on OBPS
software. It is further averred that the areas of LCMA in any
case fall within SMC for the purpose of Municipal Elections
and within the Rural Development Department for the
purposes of Panchayati Raj Elections and, in fact, by
referring to the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation
Act, 2000 and the Jammu and Kashmir Panchayati Raj Act,
1989, the petitioners want to create unnecessary confusion
as the authority to grant permission for construction of
residential buildings with respect to such areas, which do
not fall within the jurisdiction of LCMA, vests with the Rural
Development Department in light of Government Order
dated 22.01.2022. However, for developing hotel or any
commercial structure in the same rural area, the authority
vests with the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under
rules.
4) Mr. Salih Pirzada, learned counsel for the petitioners
has reiterated the submissions made in the petition as
referred above.
5) Per contra, Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, learned GA, has
submitted that the villages of the petitioners fall within the
jurisdiction of LCMA and it is the LCMA that is competent
WP(C) No.688/2025 4|Page
to grant permission for raising any residential or commercial
construction. He has placed reliance upon Government
Order dated 01.04.2022, which was taken on record when
the matter was heard and reserved for judgment, to submit
that the areas within the jurisdiction of LCMA have been
specifically excluded from the purview of Government Order
dated 22,01,2022 issued under Panchayati Raj Act.
6) Heard and perused the record.
7) This is admitted case of the petitioners that their
villages falling in Block Harwan came within the jurisdiction
of LCMA in terms of SRO 57 of 1998. The contention of the
petitioners is that in terms of Government Order dated
22.01.2022, a competent authority/committee was
constituted by the Government for grant of permission for
construction/re-construction/alteration of residential/
commercial buildings in rural areas of J&K and as the
villages of the petitioners in Block Harwan fall within the
ambit of J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989, therefore, the
authority/committee constituted in terms of Government
Order dated 22.01.2022 is the only competent authority to
grant permission for raising construction/re-construction/
alteration of residential/commercial buildings in rural areas
of J&K and that is why valid permission has been granted
for raising construction. In terms of SRO 32 dated 10th
WP(C) No.688/2025 5|Page
January, 2019, the Government notified the names of the
Sarpanches and Panches in District Srinagar which
included the villages of the petitioners as well.
8) The petitioners are trying to justify the permissions
granted by the office of Block Development Officer, Harwan,
by conjoint reading of SRO 32 of 2019 and Government
Order dated 22.01.2022. However, in terms of Government
Order dated 01.04.2022 the areas within the jurisdiction of
any Tourism Development Authority/any other Authority
empowered under any other Act or law stand excluded from
the ambit of the Government Order dated 22.01.2022. The
relevant extract of Government Order dated 01.04.2022 is
reproduced as under:
"Government Order No.11-RD&PR of 2022 dated
22.01.2022 issued order endorsement No. RDD-
Pnch 269/2021 dated 22.01.2022, shall not be
applicable in the areas failing under the jurisdiction
of any tourism Development Authority/Any other
Authority empowered under any other Act or law in
accord building permissions."
9) In view of the Government Order dated 01.04.2022, the
relief sought by the petitioners for declaring that respondent
No.5 does not have any jurisdiction over Block Harwan
(Halqa Fakirgujri A&B, Gandtal, Syedpora, Theed A&B and
Dara A&B) cannot be granted.
10) It was next contended by learned counsel for the
petitioners that valid permissions have been granted, and as
WP(C) No.688/2025 6|Page
such, the respondent No.5 has no jurisdiction to issue
notice/order under Control of Building Operations Act. The
petitioners have placed on record the building permissions
issued by Block Development Officer concerned in favour of
Mudasir Khurshid Naqib, Uzma Manzoor, Hanan Maqbool
and Gulla Phamda. However, no permission to raise
construction in respect of petitioners has been annexed with
the present petition and also no notice has been issued to
the petitioners, as is evident from the documents annexed
with the writ petition. The notice issued under Section 7(1)
of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act can be replied
by the alleged violator and if the order under Section 7(3) of
the Control of Building Operations Act has been issued, then
the same is appealable before the Appellate Authority. The
petitioners have no locus-standi to challenge the
notice/order 15.03.2025, 17.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 issued by
respondent No.5, particularly when the persons aggrieved of
the notice/order has not chosen to assail the same.
11) In view of the above discussion, the present petition is
found to be misconceived and the same is dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Srinagar
17.10.2025
"Bhat Altaf"
Whether the judgment is reportable: No
WP(C) No.688/2025 7|Page
