Partly allowed

S Kuldip Singh v. Building Operation Controlling Authority Jmc Jammu and Others

J&K HC7 Dec 2021WP(C)/2653/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reviewed a Tribunal order requiring a petitioner to furnish a Rs. 30 lakh bond to maintain status quo pending a demolition case. Finding the amount excessive, the Court reduced it to Rs. 10 lakh and set the impugned order accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The impugned interim order dated 26.11.2021 was modified to require the petitioner to furnish a security bond of Rs. 10 lacs instead of Rs. 30 lacs.

S Kuldip Singh Vs Building Operation Controlling… — Writ and Judicial Review | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 53

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

CJ Court

¶4

Case: WP(C) No. 2653 of 2021

¶5

S.Kuldip Singh

¶6

.....Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through :- Sh. K. S. Johal, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Supreet Singh Johal, Advocate.

¶7

v/s

¶8

Building Operation Controlling Authority JMC Jammu and Others

¶9

.....Respondent(s)

¶10

Through :- Sh. Rajnish Raina, Advocate.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard Sh. K. S. Johal, senior counsel assisted by Sh. Supreet Singh Johal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Rajnish Raina, learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶15

The petition has been filed challenging the condition imposed in the interim order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu, (hereinafter for short ‘the Tribunal’) .

¶16

It appears that the order of demolition dated 22.11.2021 passed under Section 7(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988, (herein after for short ‘the Act’) was challenged before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal by the impugned order so as to maintain the status quo with regard to the building directed the petitioner to furnish a bond for a sum of ₹ 30 lacs to satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal as a condition precedent for maintaining the status quo.

¶17

2 WP(C) No. 2653 of 2021

¶18

The submission of Sh. Johal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not raising any further constructions as the same are already complete and as such the Tribunal was not empowered to impose such a condition of furnishing security.

¶19

Secondly, requiring the petitioner to furnish bond of ₹ 30 lacs is too excessive and onerous which is beyond compliance.

¶20

It is also pointed out that the building stands already sealed under Section 8(1) of the Act.

¶21

Since the petitioner sought protection from demolition of the building, the Tribunal in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction while protecting the interest of the petitioner has imposed suitable conditions as deem fit to it. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, while protecting the constructions of petitioner from demolition, the Tribunal is justified in restraining him from raising further construction as also to furnish a security bond of the above amount. However, in the facts and circumstances and the alleged violation, the amount of the security bond is apparently too high. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the same should be reduced considerably so as to make it within the reasonable limit to enable the petitioner to comply with the same.

¶22

Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the constructions of the petitioner shall not be demolished pursuant to order dated 22.11.2021 provided the petitioner does not make any further construction which probably is not possible due to building lying sealed and subject to his furnishing security bond of the amount of ₹ 10 lacs to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal instead of ₹ 30 lacs as directed.

¶23

3 WP(C) No. 2653 of 2021

¶24

The interim order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the Tribunal stands

¶25

modified to the above extent.

¶26

The petition stands disposed of with the expectation that the Tribunal

¶27

will do its best to decide the matter finally as expeditiously as possible.

¶28

(SANJAY DHAR) (PANKAJ MITHAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

JAMMU

¶30

07.12.2021

¶31

Sunita

S Kuldip Singh v. Building Operation Controlling Authority Jmc Jammu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Kuldip Singh v. Building Operation Controlling Authority Jmc Jammu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Yousaf Vs the State of J and K Th. Its Commissioner-Secretary to Govt.

Raghubir Singh Vs State of J and K through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department

Prof.S.K.Bhalla Vs State Th.Chief Secy.and Ors.

J and K Power Dev Deptt Th Its Chief Engineer Vs M/S Kec International Ltd.

Jammu and Kashmir Power Development (P.D.D.) Deptt. Th.Its Cheif Engineer,Jammu. Vs M/S Kec International Ltd.

J and K Power Development (P.D.D.) Deptt. Th.Its Chief Engineer,Jammu. Vs M/S Kec International Ltd.