Jammu: Ex-Deputy Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir got relief from the J&K Special Tribunal as Judicial Member of J&K Special Tribunal ordered kept in abeyance the order dated November 8, 2021 issued by JDA for demolition the house at Nagrota.
Judicial Member J&K Rajesh Sekri after hearing Sr. Adv RK Gupta assisted by Jugal Kishore Gupta and Rahul Sadotra appearing for the Mamta Singh wife of Nirmal Singh Ex-Deputy CM whereas Adv Muzaffar Ali Shah caveator in present in person seeks time to file application for impleadment, Adv Adarsh Sharma appearing for the JDA seeks time to produce the record and written submissions, ordered that the impugned order dated November 8, 2021 is kept in abeyance and parties are directed to maintain status-quo on spot till December 7, 2021.
During the course of hearing Sr. Adv RK Gupta submitted that appellant is the owner in possession of a residential plot measuring 04 Kanals comprising in Khasra no. 441 Min, Khata no. 534 Min, Khewat no. situated at Revenue Village Ban. Nagrota District Jammu, which was purchased by him vide Sale Deed dated 20.05.2014 and the area where the land is situated, being outside the jurisdiction of any Development Authority, the appellant raised the construction of a house in the said land and the structure of the house was completed in all respects in the beginning of the year 2017.
Some internal finishing works were subsequently completed and the appellant along with his family have since being living in the house peacefully ever since.
During the entire period of construction and thereafter, there was no complaint by any development authority regarding the construction of the house and rightly so as the same had already been constructed prior to the coming into force of Jammu Master Plan, 2032 which was notified vide SRO No. 90 of 2017 dated 03.03.2017 whereby as many as 103 villagers were included and the jurisdiction of Jammu Development Authority was extended to those areas.
Village Ban of Nagrota was also one of the areas where the jurisdiction of the J DA was extended as per the notification.
He further submitted that after a period of more than 04 years after the completion of the building, the respondents alleged to have issued a notice under section 7 (1) of the COBO Act, 1988 whereby the appellant was directed to show cause as to why the house constructed by her may not be demolished as it alleged to have been raised without valid permission and no notices under section 7 (1), 12 (1), 12 (2) of the COBO Act, 1988 were ever issued or served to the appellant as referred in the notice impugned.
It is further submitted that thereafter suddenly the appellant was served with the impugned order of demolition in terms of section 7 (3) of the Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 (COBO) whereby the appellant has been directed to demolish / remove the construction within a period of five days from the date of receipt of this noticeotherwise, the same shall be demolished by the enforcement wing. JNF