Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Apr 29: The Division Bench of the High Court has upheld the writ court verdict whereby exclusion of the areas of tourist place Harwan from the control and jurisdiction of Jammu and Lakes Conservation and Management Authority (LCMA) was refused.
The LCMA had issued notices for unauthorized constructions and violation of building laws in the Harwan and its adjoining areas which came to be challenged by the residents of Harwan seeking direction from the writ court to declare that the (LCMA) does not have any jurisdiction over Fakir-Gujri, Gandtal, Syedpora, Theed, Dara and adjacent areas as such the notices are illegal.
The plea sought a direction upon the LCMA not to create any interference in the matters of these areas which are otherwise regulated under Panchayati Raj Act. The case projected before the court was that initially their villages did not fall within the jurisdiction of LCMA but in terms of SRO of 1998, villages Harwan Theed, Dara, Murinderbad, Mufti Bagh and Fakirgujri also came to be included in the substituted list of local areas within the jurisdiction of LCMA.
“We do not find any conflict between the Development Act and the Panchayati Raj Act insofar as regulation of building permissions and their violations are concerned. If the area of Harwan is part of a Notified Area for which LCMA has been constituted, it is the LCMA and the Control of Building Authority which alone shall have jurisdiction to grant building permissions and to ensure that no construction or development takes place in the notified area either without building permissions or in violation of permissions granted. Viewed from any angle, we find no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed”, the Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar said.
The Government, while invoking Section 3(3) of the J&K Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, excluded number of villages including the villages in question from the jurisdiction of Srinagar Municipal Corporation in the year 2014 and after such exclusion, the Government included Harwan as a Block under the Panchayati Raj Act and, as such, Fakir-Gujri A&B, Gandtal, Syedpora, Theed A&B, Dara A&B etc. were included as Halqas within Block Harwan.
It is contended that in pursuance of notification issued under Panchayati Raj Act, the petitioner-villagers and other residents of Block Harwan were granted building permission under Section 12(iv) of Panchayati Raj Act by the competent authority designated in terms of Government and in the Legislative Assembly, two questions in respect of unauthorized constructions and permissions in the areas including those of the petitioner-villagers, were raised, which ultimately came to be referred to the LCMA and thereafter the said Authority started issuing notices under Control of Building Operations Act, alleging violation of building laws.
The petitioner-Villagers, as such, have impugned the action of the LCMA in respect of action taken under Control of Building Operations Act, on the premise that their villages fall beyond the area within the jurisdiction of LCMA and the power to grant the building permission vests with the statutory authorities under the Panchayati Raj Ac.
They averred that in pursuance of notification issued under Panchayati Raj Act, they and other residents of Block Harwan were granted building permission under Section 12(iv) of Panchayati Raj Act read with Rule 155 of Panchayati Raj Rules by the competent authority designated in terms of Government Order dated 22.01.2022.
The LCMA counsel however, submitted that the villages of the petitioners fall within the jurisdiction of LCMA and it is the LCMA that is competent to grant permission for raising any residential or commercial construction.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal while dismissing the plea said, the petitioner-villagers are trying to justify the permissions granted by the office of Block Development Officer, Harwan, by conjoint reading of SRO 32 of 2019 and Government Order dated 22.01.2022.




