S.15 BOCA Act | Orders Passed By Authority Are Final, Can't Be Questioned In Any Suit, Application Or Execution Proceedings: J&K High Court

Dismissing a petition challenging an order passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasised the Tribunal's final authority in matters under the Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 and the limited scope of the High Court's writ jurisdiction in disputes involving questions of fact.Declining interference with the orders of Tribunal Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,“..indulgence sought by the petitioner herein the instant petition of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under these circumstances may not be warranted, firstly in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1988 which provides for finality of orders passed by the Authority or the Appellate Officer with a rider not be called in question in any suit, application or execution proceedings”.Background and Dispute:The case stemmed from a dispute between the Building Operation Controlling Authority (BOCA) and S. Gurmeet Singh regarding unauthorized construction in Jammu. The BOCA had granted permission to Singh to construct a building with five shops on the ground floor and a residential house on the first floor. However, Singh submitted a revised plan proposing additional shops and an underground parking area. While the BOCA did not formally approve or reject the revised plan, it later issued a demolition notice for unauthorized construction.Singh appealed the demolition notice to the J&K Special Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the revised plan and the nature of the alleged violations, directed Singh to pay a compounding fee to regularize the construction.BOCA challenged the Tribunal's order in the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the revised plan and that the violations were substantial. Singh, on the other hand, contended that the BOCA's inaction on the revised plan amounted to deemed approval, and the violations were minor in nature.High Court's Observations:Adjudicating the matter Justice Wani noted BOCA's inaction on the revised plan for a significant period and interpreted the same as a tacit acceptance on the part of petitioners.“Tribunal have had been alive to the aforesaid facts in particular that the respondent 1 herein have had submitted his revised plan during the course of raising construction, regarding which plan no decision have had been taken by the petitioner herein within the statutory period which entitled the respondent 1 herein to a deemed sanction/permission”, the court said.The bench also pointed towards the fact that the Tribunal had considered the revised plan and the report from the Town Planner, which indicated no major objections to the construction. Furthermore, BOCA's acceptance of the compounding fee deposited by Singh further suggested a lack of serious objection to the construction, the bench underscored.“The said position also gets endorsed and authenticated by the fact that the BOCA-petitioner herein after the passing of the impugned order by the Tribunal on 03.06.2005 received and acknowledged the amount of compounding fee of Rs.2,69,825/- vide receipt dated 01.09.2005 coupled with the fact of the report submitted by the Town Planner to the petitioner herein regarding the revised plan submitted by the respondent 1 herein reflecting therein that the Town Planning Organization have had no serious objection to the raising of the construction by the respondent”, the bench recorded.Notably, Justice Wani also referenced Section 15 of the BOCA Act, emphasizing the finality of orders passed by the Authority or Appellate Officer. Additionally, it cited "Administrator Municipality Jammu Vs M/s K. C. Hotels Private Limited" and "Kewal Kishan Gupta Vs J&K Special Tribunal," to underscore the Tribunal's competence to compound violations and the need to avoid unnecessary demolition of structures.In alignment with the said observations, the court dismissed BOCA's petition hence affirming the Tribunal's decision.Case Title: Building Operation Controlling Authority Vs S. Gurmeet Singh.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 88Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG represented BOCA, Mr. M. K. Bhardwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manik Bhardwaj, Advocate appeared for the RespondentsClick Here To Read/Download Judgment

S.15 BOCA Act | Orders Passed By Authority Are Final, Can't Be Questioned In Any Suit, Application Or Execution Proceedings: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags