Srinagar: The J&K High Court has directed the Commissioner Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) to inform it about the seizure of residential properties where commercial activities have been undertaken in Green Belt Park and Gandhi Nagar areas, and the involvement of Khilafwarzi officers in the offence.
The direction came in a writ petition by one Varun Mahajan whose property has been sealed under J&K Control of Building Operations Act (BOCA) 1988.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal directed the Commissioner to inform it “out of total minor/major violations, how many residential properties where commercial activities were undertaken, have been sealed in Green Belt Park and Gandhi Nagar areas under Section 8 of the Act”.
The court also directed the Commissioner to furnish an affidavit about the number of cases in which he has initiated preliminary enquiry “to ascertain as to whether the field staff (Khilafwarzi Officers/Enforcement inspectors) were involved by way of act of omission and commission in pursuance of which minor/major violation were committed in Green Belt Park and Gandhi Nagar areas”.
The bench asked the JMC Commissioner “out of total major violations liable for penal action under Section 7 of the Act of 1988, how many residential properties subject to aforesaid minor/major violations have been sealed in Green Belt Park and Gandhi Nagar areas?”
It further directed him to state “whether the Jammu Master Plan 2032 permits change of land use in the residential colony of Gandhi Nagar and Green Belt Park; if so to what extent the area of the plot can be converted from residential to commercial.”
In a spree of directions, the court also directed the officer to state in writing “whether commercial buildings being run in residential areas of Gandhi Nagar and Green Belt Park have any such valid permission accorded by the competent authority in their favour for running such commercial activities, if so, to specify the dates of their establishments and permission granted.”
It directed him to clarify through an official communication “whether the establishments in which the residential permissions have been accorded and yet the commercial activity is going on in violation of the permission granted for land use, what action has been taken by the respondents in this regard by providing details.”
Seeking direction against the respondents to de-seal his property, the petitioner said the asset was purchased by him some time ago and that a commercial enterprise existed there prior to the sale deed.
The specific case which has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that no show cause notice was ever issued before passing the impugned order. “The sealing of the premises by the respondents is self-contradictory as the respondents have allowed the commercial activities to carry on for more than 22 years. They have raised no objection since 1986.”
At this fag end, the respondents are stopped under law to question the same by issuing the order impugned, when the grievance of the respondents was only to the extent of the violation against the Municipal Laws and not against the commercial activities being carried on in the said premises, read the petition.
