petitioner has admitted that the brick kiln was installed by one Sanjay Kumar in whose favour, the competent authority had issued the license, who in turn after its installation sold the land to the father of the respondent No. 6. The mistake, if any, has been committed by the Revenue Authorities while recording the existence of brick kiln in survey No. 326 min instead of 421 min and the same cannot be attributed to the respondent No. 6 or his father by any stretch of imagination. The respondent No. 6 has completed all the formalities required under the rules for the establishment/functioning of brick kiln and even the mining plan of the brick kiln of the respondent No. 6 stands approved vide order dated 04.08.2017 by the Director, Geology and Mining. It is also stated that enquiry was conducted by the SDM Akhnoor, who submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu and a perusal of the same shows that the same is in favour of the respondent No. 6 and in no manner whatsoever, the respondent No. 6 has been implicated. However, acting on the said inquiry report, then ADDC, Jammu directed the sealing of the Brick Kiln of the respondent No. 6 vide order dated 20.04.2017, which was impugned by the respondent No. 6 through the medium of an appeal and was subsequently set aside vide order dated 26.07.2017 by the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 6 has denied that the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu has wrongly assumed the appellate jurisdiction but the same has been conferred upon him in terms of Section 5 of the J&K Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 by the Government vide SRO No. 94 dated 23.03.2011. It is further stated that local people of the area along
