GH QADIR KENG Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appears to have submitted a proposed plan for raising construction on a piece of land comprising Survey Nos 63 & 64 measuring 4 kanals situated at Gulmarg. While the application of the petitioner was under consideration before the authorities concerned, he chose to file this writ petition way back in the year 1989, but neither he nor his counsel prosecuted the petition all these years despite the fact that the respondents had already filed the objections. In the objections, respondents have contended that the construction aimed at is not permissible.

(2.) THIS writ petition has come up for final hearing, but no one chose to appear for the respondents and I have heard LC for the petitioner.

(3.) I have gone through the documents annexed with the writ petition. These documents have been pressed into service by the petitioner to show that a recommendation has been made in his favour for grant of permission and emphasis has been laid on a communication bearing No. BP/Gulmarg/89/ 1029 dated 23/09/1989. This communication, undoubtedly contains a recommendation but at the same time, it reveals that the restrictions required to be imposed in accordance with the rules are yet to be determined. The petitioners endeavour is to reply on a part of the recommendation, which is not possible because once the party relies on a document, it has to betaken into consideration as a whole.