Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property SimpleLoginLog::$installed_ver is deprecated in /home/site/wwwroot/wp-content/plugins/simple-login-log/simple-login-log.php on line 46
{"id":271907,"date":"2022-08-19T11:00:31","date_gmt":"2022-08-19T05:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=271907"},"modified":"2022-08-19T10:32:00","modified_gmt":"2022-08-19T05:02:00","slug":"jk-and-ladakh-hc-in-a-democratic-polity-governed-by-the-rule-of-law-state-cannot-deprive-a-citizen-of-their-property-without-the-sanction-of-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.scconline.gen.in\/post\/2022\/08\/19\/jk-and-ladakh-hc-in-a-democratic-polity-governed-by-the-rule-of-law-state-cannot-deprive-a-citizen-of-their-property-without-the-sanction-of-law\/","title":{"rendered":"J&K and Ladakh HC| In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, State cannot deprive a citizen of their property without the sanction of law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Tweet<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

   <\/p>\n

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court<\/span>: While deciding the instant petition wherein the issue was that whether the change of user (misuse of a building from residential to commercial or vice versa) in violation of the permitted land use as per the master plan for an area to which the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 applies, would fall within the ambit of unauthorized ‘erection or re-erection<\/i>' as contemplated under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the afore-stated 1988 Act; the Division Bench of Wasim Sadiq Nargal and Tashi Rabstan, JJ., observed that in a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State by no stretch of imagination, can deprive a citizen of his\/her property without the sanction of law, besides complying with the procedure envisaged in the statutory provision<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Facts and Contentions<\/span>: The petitioners were aggrieved with the sealing of their property, for which a notice was issued as per the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988<\/span>. However, the petitioners alleged that no such notice was ever served to them before their properties were sealed.<\/p>\n

The counsel for the petitioners contended that no notice was served upon them, and their properties were sealed without affording them any chance of being heard, which in turn violated the principles of natural justice. It was also submitted that the respondents did not apply their mind and verified the ground reality concerning the petitioners' property while issuing the impugned notice.<\/p>\n

Per contra<\/i>, the respondents argued that the petitioners were renovating the building for commercial use which necessitated the action of sealing the building for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 1988 Act.<\/p>\n

Observations<\/p>\n