HC directives in sealing of business premises

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, May 22: High Court today issued number of directions in the bunch of petitions seeking quashment of notices for sealing of business premises.
After hearing Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi and Advocate Pranav Kohli appearing for the petitioners whereas Advocate SS Nanda appearing for respondent, Justice Janak Raj Kotwal observed, ” the analysis of relevant laws would lead to irresistible conclusion and render it beyond any doubt that the nature of use, that is, the purpose for which a building is being or has been constructed in a particular zone and shall be used for, is inherent in and inseparable from the grant of permission to erect or re- erect a building and approval to the Building Plan”.
“Adhering to permitted user and not changing the user in violation of permitted land use would be relevant not only during the erection or re-erection (construction) of a building but for all times to come and the user cannot be permitted to infringe the permissible land use as per the Master Plan applicable at a given time”, Justice Kotwal said, adding “to say that unauthorized change of user (misuse) of a building after its construction has been completed without effecting any structural change would not be in conformity with the scheme under the Act and would rather defeat the very purpose envisaged in Control of Building Operations for the planned development of an area”.
“To allow change of user contrary to Master Plan after the construction of a building would defeat the very object of planned development of an area/zone and neutralize the purpose of preparing Master Plan, which is linked with not only the future development of an area/zone but also the future of the generations coming to reside there”, High Court said.
Justice Kotwal held that change of user (misuse) of a building in violation of permitted land use even without effecting structural alteration therein and thereto attracts mischief and the concerned authority has jurisdiction to proceed for taking appropriate action including order of sealing of the building/premises so misused,
“It needs to be ascertained by the authority as to whether a particular business activity about which the action is going to be taken is not permissible in the residential zone and infringes the Master Plan. While taking action against one defaulter it is important also to take note of other similar activities running in the area and their permissibility so that discrimination is avoided”, Justice Kotwal said.
“All this, however, does not seem to have been done in these cases. The orders of demolition, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain as they infringe the principle of natural justice. At the same time alleged change of land use (misuse) in the residential area cannot be condoned for the faulty action of the Authority or allowed to continue without determining its permissibility”, High Court said while disposing of the petitions.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here