J&K High Court Grants Extension Of Building Permission Due To Interim Stay Blocking Construction, Says Parties Can't Suffer Due To Court Order
In a case involving delay in construction due to court-ordered stay, Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed the Municipal Committee to extend the previously granted building permission by two more years, allowing the appellants to carry out construction that was earlier stayed due to pending litigation.The appellants had approached the court arguing that the interim stay order dated issued...
In a case involving delay in construction due to court-ordered stay, Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed the Municipal Committee to extend the previously granted building permission by two more years, allowing the appellants to carry out construction that was earlier stayed due to pending litigation.
The appellants had approached the court arguing that the interim stay order dated issued during the pendency of the writ petition, had prevented them from utilizing the 2 year window for constructing, and that they should not suffer due to circumstances beyond their control.
A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Parihar observed that the appellants cannot be made to suffer for something they have not done and extended the building permission by two years.
The court stated that we have passed this direction keeping in view the fact that the appellants could not raise their construction due to the interim stay.
While noting that the original writ petition had already been dismissed and the appellants were not aggrieved by the outcome per se, the court nonetheless acknowledged the equitable relief sought.
It directed the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee Hajin, to issue a formal order of extension for two years, based on the original building permission dated 6th August 2021, and subject to its original terms and conditions.
The court was hearing an intra-court appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition had challenged a building permission order issued in August 2021, but was ultimately dismissed as infructuous, given that the permission had already expired after two years.
The appellants sought extension of the permission for completing the construction as the same could not be completed due interim stay of the writ court in operation.
However the court disposed of the petition by granting the two year extention to the petitioner to complete construction after acknowledging that same was not possible during the period of stay and thus no person could be prejudiced by the act of the court.
APPEARANCE
Taha Khalil, Advocate For Petitioner
Ab. Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG For Respondents
Case-Title: GHULAM HASSAN SHERGOJRI & ORS vs MOHAMMAD RAJAB GOJRI AND ORS , 2025