HC dismisses writ petition against SMC's Regularisation of Minor Building Deviation, Upholds Tribunal Order

14/08/2025

SRINAGAR, Aug 14: In a significant development, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a writ petition challenging the regularisation of a minor building deviation by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC), affirming the legality of the order passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar. The judgment is being seen as a reaffirmation of the principles governing administrative decisions, the scope of judicial review, and the doctrine of locus standi in urban planning and regulatory matters.
The case was heard by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, who delivered a comprehensive judgment dismissing petition filed by Noor Mohammad Dar, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. R.A. Jan with Ms. Humaira Sajad. The respondents included the Srinagar Municipal Corporation through Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mehnaz Rather, appearing for the private respondent (Respondent No. 7), and Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, representing official respondents (Respondents No. 1-6).
The petitioner sought to quash the Special Tribunal's order dated May 29, 2024, which had upheld the SMC's decision to regularise a minor deviation of 118 sq. ft. from the originally sanctioned construction area of 1763 sq. ft., amounting to approximately 7% deviation. The regularisation was approved through Order No. SMC/2024/2893 dated November 19, 2024.
Previously, in WP(C) No. 1411/2022, the High Court had set aside the earlier order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing it to consider the legality of the construction raised by Respondent No. 7 in light of a demolition notice issued by the SMC on May 12, 2022.
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal had failed to comply with the High Court's remand directions and merely reiterated its earlier findings without properly adjudicating the legality of the demolition notice or the alleged violation of land use norms.
Key Issues Before the Court
The High Court framed three pivotal issues for adjudication:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred by not adjudicating the matter afresh as directed in the remand order passed in WP(C) No. 1411/2022,
2. Whether the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in directing regularisation of the construction without evaluating the nature of the deviation independently,
3. Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's order and SMC's subsequent actions.
Findings and Observations
On a detailed analysis of the record, the Court held that the Tribunal had duly complied with the remand directions. It had considered the extent of deviation, examined relevant bye-laws, particularly the J&K Unified Building Bye-laws, 2021, and found the deviation to be within compoundable limits. The Tribunal accordingly remanded the matter to SMC under Rule 20 of the J&K Special Tribunal Rules, 1986, and SMC subsequently regularised the deviation after due process.
The Court rejected the petitioner's claim that the Tribunal had mechanically endorsed the SMC's action. Justice Nargal observed:
"The Tribunal's approach cannot be termed as perfunctory or mechanical. It applied its mind to the nature and extent of deviation and acted within the bounds of the statutory framework."
Justice Nargal pointed out that regularisation of minor deviations is permissible under building bye-laws and cannot be invalidated unless shown to be mala fide, ultra vires, or in contravention of statutory norms.
A key turning point in the case was the Court's ruling on the locus standi of the petitioner, who was neither a party to the original proceedings before the Tribunal nor directly impacted by the construction in question.
The petitioner had attempted to frame the issue as one of public interest, claiming violation of urban development norms. However, the Court found no material placed on record to demonstrate any direct legal injury or procedural irregularity that would warrant judicial intervention.
"Public interest cannot be a cloak for personal grievances or speculative apprehensions," Justice Nargal observed, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in R.K. Jain v. Union of India (1993).
The Court further emphasized that liberal interpretation of locus standi in PIL matters cannot be applied to settled disputes between specific parties, especially when statutory remedies have been exhausted.
The petitioner also failed to produce any zoning maps, notifications, or land use documents to support the claim that the construction violated applicable land use norms.
"Mere assertions without cogent evidence cannot form the basis for invalidating an administrative decision," the Court remarked.
In conclusion, the High Court held that the Tribunal had conducted a legally sound and evidence-based adjudication, the SMC had acted within its statutory competence, and the petitioner had failed to establish any perversity, arbitrariness, or illegality in the regularisation process.
Accordingly, the writ petition, deemed to be without merit and a misuse of judicial process, was dismissed along with all connected applications.
"The petitioner appears to have approached the Court belatedly, after watching proceedings from the fence, and without substantiating any statutory breach or personal injury," Justice Nargal concluded.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty