ROMESH CHANDER Vs. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WILLFUL non adherence on the part of the appellants to the sanctioned plan of the construction, traceable to the major deviations in the set backs, height of the building etc. was sought to be compounded before the Special Tribunal, but of no avail, resultantly, invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the writ court but in vain, consequently, this intra -court appeal mainly on the ground of an instance of like violation which has been refuted by the other side with the support of an affidavit of the Administrator, who has no scores to settle with the appellants and against whom no malafides are averred. More so, no documentary evidence even worth the name is annexed with the appeal to lend support to the allegation of violation, thus rebuttal has to receive credence leading to an irresistible conclusion that the averment relating to the violation mentioned expressly in the writ petition is unfounded.

(2.) THIS brings us to the commission of error attributed to the Tribunal by the learned counsel for the appellants because of its decliner to compound the violation. The argument being dependent upon the availability of the power of the Tribunal to compound the violations, second proviso to sub -section (4) of section 229 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, Samvat 2008 assumes significance which may be noticed:

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY the proviso enshrines the power to compound the offence but the power has to be exercised as envisaged by rules, regulations and orders as may prescribed which stand prescribed and are called "the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal (Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 1977". Relevant to the controversy being rule 3 which may be extracted: