LAWS(J&K)-2014-10-4

MAHANT VIDAYA PURI Vs. STATE OF J&K

Decided On October 31, 2014
Mahant Vidaya Puri Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, whereby petitioner seeks writ of prohibition, prohibiting respondent/Municipal Corporation, Jammu from interfering in construction process to be undertaken by the petitioner as per site plan submitted by him to the respondents and a command to be issued to the respondents to stop interference in the said construction process.

(2.) Heard. I have perused the record.

(3.) Petitioner's case, briefly, is that he submitted the site plan of proposed construction on a vacant piece of his land situate at Prem Nagar, Vivekanand Chowk, Jammu alongwith application for building permission to respondent No. 2 and deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 100 on 18.04.2011. Respondent No. 2, however, neither issued any notice to the petitioner calling upon him to satisfy any requirement nor has sanctioned the building plan or refused the sanction. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were required to accord or refuse sanction within stipulated period of sixty days from the date of receipt of application and after expiry of sixty days, petitioner has acquired an indefeasible right of deemed sanction under Regulation 7(3) of the Control of Building Operations Regulations 1998 (for short the Regulations) framed under the Jammu and Kashmir, Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 (for short the Act). Petitioner's case further is that he waited for reply of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 up to 31.08.2011 and as nothing was heard from them, he started raising the construction of a wall as per the site plan but respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through their officials of Khilaf Warzi Section dismantled the wall. Petitioner has thus, contended that as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were under statutory obligation to take a decision in his application within a stipulated period of sixty days and in case permission was refused, respondents were required to inform the grounds of such refusal to the petitioner in writing within 30 days of the refusal so indefeasible right of deemed permission has accrued to him.