HC dismisses plea against SMC construction regularisation, says neighbour lacked locus standi
17/05/2026
Srinagar, May 16: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition challenging orders of the J&K Special Tribunal relating to regularisation of additional construction in Srinagar, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any legally enforceable right or locus standi to maintain the writ proceedings.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the judgment in a petition filed by Hajira, who had challenged orders of the J&K Special Tribunal allowing regularisation of additional construction raised by a private respondent at Bar-thana, Qamarwari, Srin-agar under the "deemed permission" clau-se of the Jammu and Kashmir Mu-nicipal Corpora-tion Act, 2000. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Nisar Ahmad Bhat, while Deputy Advocate General Bikra-mdeep Singh appeared for the official respondents and Advocate M.M. Dar represented the private respondent. The petitioner had sought quashing of the Tribunal's order dated May 28, 2024, its corrigendum and an earlier order rejecting her impleadment application. She also sought directions to aut-horities to seal and demolish the allegedly illegal construction.
According to the case, the private respondent had obtained building permission in 2013, which was later revalidated in 2019. The petitioner alleged the respondent had sold part of the land, raised additional floors beyond sanctioned limits and carried out construction contrary to the approved plan. The High Court noted that the petitioner's application seeking impleadment before the Tribunal had already been dismissed on September 26, 2023, with a finding that she was neither a necessary nor proper party to the proceedings.
Justice Nargal held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how any legally protected right stood infringed by permission granted in favour of the private respondent and observed that vague apprehensions or general allegations were insufficient to invoke writ jurisdiction.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings on locus standi, the court observed that a person invoking writ jurisdiction must establish infringement of a legal right and cannot maintain proceedings on mere apprehension or personal grievance.
The High Court also rejected objections to the
corrigendum issued by the Tribunal, holding that it was clarificatory in nature and did not substantially alter the original order or create new rights in favour of the private respondent.
The court further observed that the petitioner had allowed the earlier order rejecting impleadment to attain finality and could not indirectly reopen issues already decided by challenging subsequent proceedings.
In significant observations, the High Court said the litigation appeared motivated by personal animosity rather than protection of any legal right and termed the case as bearing "all the indicia of vexatious litigation."
Holding that the impugned orders suffered from
no illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional infirmity,
the High Court dismissed the writ petition along with connected applications.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|
|
|