E-Paper
Tribunal sets aside demolition notice for former J&K deputy CM’s controversial bungalow
Mamta Singh, wife of former J&K deputy CM Nirmal Kumar Singh had contested the JDA’s November 8 order issued to demolish the bungalow at Ban in Nagrota area of Jammu district. (COBO Act) before the special tribunal
The Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal presided by member judicial Rajeev Gupta on Monday allowed an appeal filed by Mamta Singh, wife of former deputy chief minister (CM) Nirmal Kumar Singh, and set aside a demolition notice served to her by the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) directing her to demolish their bungalow at Ban in Nagrota area of Jammu district.
Mamta Singh had contested the JDA’s November 8 order issued under Section 7(3) of Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 (COBO Act) before the special tribunal.
JDA had described the bungalow as an “illegal construction raised in violation of Section 7(3) of J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 (COBO Act).
Though the special tribunal set aside the impugned demolition notice on technical grounds, it observed and directed that the Building Operation Controlling Authority of JDA (BOCA) shall be at liberty to proceed afresh against Mamta Singh for violation of the building bye-laws “by strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 7 of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988”.
Mamta Singh’s counsels, senior advocate RK Gupta and advocate Rahul Sadotra submitted that notice under Section 7(1) of J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 was never served upon the appellant.
It was further urged that the manner of the service of notice was prescribed in section 7(2) of J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988.
In this regard Mamta Singh relied upon a judgment of the division bench of J&K High Court titled BOCA versus Koushalya Devi and others wherein it was held by the division bench that when it (constructed structure) is disputed then it has to be proved that the notice was served in presence of independent witness.
The Special Tribunal after going through the records of JDA observed that the notice under section 7(1) was stated to have been served on October, 30, 2021 and the manner in which the notice was served, the particulars of the serving official and the person to whom it was served were not mentioned in the endorsement and even it was recorded in the minutes of proceedings in the file.
The special tribunal further observed that the JDA has failed to establish the valid service of the show cause notice on the appellant which is a mandatory pre-condition for proceeding with statutory exercise against violation of the building bye-laws.
Advocate Adarsh Sharma appearing for JDA, however, resisted the contentions of the appellant and submitted that the area in question was included in the jurisdiction of the JDA vide SRO 388 dated August, 10, 1984 and since then it was being administered by the JDA and it was incumbent upon the appellant to have obtained permission from the JDA before commencement of the residential house.
It was further urged that since the construction was raised illegally without obtaining valid permission from BOCA as such notice under Section 7(1) was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why the construction may not be demolished. The said notice was duly served upon the appellant and she did not respond to the said notice as such the demolition order was issued.
Advocate Sharma further submitted that the area in question is described in Jammu Master Plan 2032 as vegetation and as such falls under agricultural land use and no residential construction was permissible in the said area.
After considering the rival contentions, the special tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Mamta Singh on technical grounds for want of defect in the service of show cause notice and accordingly set aside the impugned demolition order.
The Tribunal, however, observed that the BOCA shall be at liberty to proceed afresh against the appellant for violation of the building bye-laws by strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 7 of the COBO Act.
With these observations and directions, the tribunal disposed of the appeal preferred by Mamta Singh.
