news details |
|
|
| Tribunal grants relief to Ex-Deputy CM, keeps in abeyance demolition order of his house | | |
Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 12: Ex-Deputy Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, Dr. Nirmal Singh got relief from the J&K Special Tribunal as a judicial member of the Tribunal ordered to 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 senior advocate R K Gupta appearing for Mamta Singh wife of Dr. Nirmal whereas advocate Muzaffar Ali Shah caveator in present in person sought time to file application for impleadment. Advocate Adarsh Sharma appearing for the JDA sought 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 Advocate Gupta submitted that appellant is the owner in possession of a residential plot measuring four Kanals comprising in Khasra no. 441 Min, Khata no. 534 Min, Khewat number situated at Ban Nagrota, 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 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 3-3-2017 whereby as many as 103 villagers were included and the jurisdiction of Jammu Development Authority was extended to those areas. Ban was also one of the areas where the jurisdiction of the J DA was extended as per the notification.
He submitted that after a period of more than four 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
