[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Kulwant Singh vs Jammu Development Authority & Anr on 31 January, 2026
Sr. No. 42
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: WP(C) No. 152/2026
Kulwant Singh ..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate
Vs
Jammu Development Authority & Anr. .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate vice
Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for R- 1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
31.01.2026
01. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the order passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for short,
"the Tribunal") dated 29.12.2025 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned
order") is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and is not sustainable in the eyes of
law, as the same is based on conjectures, surmises and extraneous
consideration. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the Tribunal has gravely erred in law and on the facts in dismissing the appeal
solely on the allegation of tampering with the notice allegedly issued under
Section 7(3) of the Control of Building Operations Act without there being any
cogent material, inquiry or finding to establish that the alleged tampering was
committed by the petitioner. The Tribunal has swayed away on the mere
allegation of tampering and without conducting any inquiry or else giving
sufficient time to the petitioner to rebut those allegations or conducting a
thorough inquiry, it has arrived at a finding that the petition is not sustainable
in the eyes of law, as the same is violative of the very root of the principles of
natural justice particularly the doctrine the audi alteram partem.
02. In addition, it has also been argued that the Tribunal has dismissed the
appeal preferred by the petitioner without filing of the objections/reply from
the respondents and has mechanically accepted the unilateral allegation leveled
by the respondent-authority as a gospel truth without there being any
adjudication on merits. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the appeal has
been dismissed without affording the petitioner an effective and meaningful
opportunity of hearing, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural
justice and on this ground alone, the impugned order cannot sustain the test of
law and is liable to be quashed.
03. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appeal was
preferred before the Tribunal on 24.12.2025, reserved on 26.12.2025 and the
order was pronounced on 29.12.2025 and, thus, it appears that the Tribunal
was in haste in deciding the aforesaid appeal without following the due process
of law or providing an opportunity of being heard to all the contesting parties
and the procedure, which has been followed by the Tribunal is alien to the
settled principles of law.
04. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.
05. Prima facie, a case for indulgence is made out.
06. Issue notice, which is waived by Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate appearing
vice Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the respondent No. 1.
He seeks and is granted two weeks' time to file response. Petitioner to take
steps for service of respondent No. 2 within one week.
07. Registry is directed to summon the scanned record from the office of the
Tribunal in File No. STJ/337/2025 titled, "Kulwant Singh Vs. Jammu
Development Authority and Anr."
08. List on 09.03.2026.
09. In the meantime, subject to objections from other side and till next date
of hearing before the Bench, order impugned dated 29.12.2025 passed by the
Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu shall remain stayed.
10. Alteration/Modification/Vacation on Motion.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
31.01.2026
Mihul
