MANI RAM JANDIAL Vs. CHAIRMAN, J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who are the residents of Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, have through the medium of this petition assailed order of the J&K Special Tribunal passed on 6.6.1989. This order of the Tribunal has while proceeding on the assumption that the respondent No. 2 had raised the shopping complex in violation to the sanctioned site plan held this violation to be of a minor nature and while invoking the clemency of Rule -3 of the Jammu & Kashmir Municipal (Unauthorised construction) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter called the Rules) compounded the offence after imposing a compounding fee of Rs.4, 500/ - (Rs. Four thousand and five hundred only).

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 obtained sanction No. 108 dated 3.5.1988 to raise construction of canteen block on the eastern side of Swaran Cinema building situated at Gandhi Nagar Jammu. Opposite to the Swaran Cinema, the residential houses of the petitioners alongwith other houses constitute a newly raised Posh Housing Colony. Respondent No. 2 started the sanctioned construction, but instead of facing the opening of Canteen Block Shops towards the Cinema, respondent No. 2 opened the shutters towards the road which bifurcated the Cinema Complex from the aforementioned housing colony. The petitioners while feeling aggrieved of this violation on the part of respondent No. 2 approached the Jammu Municipality (respondent No. 4 in this petition) who swung into action and passed the orders under No. MJ/Estt/I9999/1604 on 22 -6 -88 (Annexure -2) asking the respondent No. 2 to dismantle the building of the extent of its violation. This order also kept in abeyance the original sanction till the production of No Objection Certificateâ„¢ from the District Magistrate, Traffic Advisory Board and Fire service. This order of respondent No. 4 was challenged by respondent No. 2 before the J&K Special Tribunal. The petitioners were in compliance with the order passed by this court on 13 -3 -1989 in writ petition No. 322/89 treated as interveners in the proceedings of the Tribunal and were also heard. The Tribunal has thus while taking refuge from Rule -3 (supra) com pounded the offence and while refusing the claim of the petitioners regularized the action of respondent No. 2 giving a cause to the petitioners for approaching this court in its extraordinary jurisdiction.

(3.) NOTICE of such hearing was given to the parties. Besides refutting some factual assertions, Respondent No. 2 has challenged the petition on the following grounds :