A bench of J&K Special Tribunal headed by member (judicial) Rajiv Gupta has listed the much publicised appeal in a case pertaining to construction of a palatial bungalow of former deputy chief minister Nirmal Singh in Ban Nagrota in Jammu district.
The appeal was filed by Singh’s wife Mamta Singh against a demolition notice issued by Jammu Development Authority (JDA) regarding the alleged illegal construction of the bungalow Ban Nagrota.
The appeal filed by Mamta Singh was heard by the J&K Special Tribunal on Thursday and the matter was deferred for April 13 for continuation of further arguments.
Both the sides put forth their submissions and sought further time to continue the arguments.
Mamta Singh had earlier moved an application wherein she contended that her case is covered under unified building bye laws, 2021 and that her case be considered in the light of the said bye laws.
However, JDA in its response had stated that the unified building bye laws, 2021 have prospective effect and the case of the appellant Mamta Singh cannot be considered under new bye laws.
Subsequently, Nirmal Singh and his wife Mamta Singh were issued a notice under Section 7(3) of the Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 for raising construction of the palatial house without seeking prior permission from the JDA. The JDA had directed them to remove the illegal construction on their own within five days failing which the JDA’s Khilafwarzi Wing would remove the violations.
{{/usCountry}}Subsequently, Nirmal Singh and his wife Mamta Singh were issued a notice under Section 7(3) of the Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 for raising construction of the palatial house without seeking prior permission from the JDA. The JDA had directed them to remove the illegal construction on their own within five days failing which the JDA’s Khilafwarzi Wing would remove the violations.
{{/usCountry}}Against the demolition notice, Mamta Singh had filed an appeal before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu and the Special Tribunal while taking cognisance of the appeal stayed the operation of the demolition notice. The stay has been extended from time to time and in the meantime, the JDA filed its response stating that it’s a case of “major violation.”