Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Abdul Ahad Parray And vs Union Territory Of J And K Th on 25 February, 2026
Serial No. 146
Suppl Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 315/2026 Caveat 202/2026
Abdul Ahad Parray and
Another ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
Through: Mr. Umer Rashid Wani, Advocate
Vs.
Union Territory of J and K Th.
Commr/Secretary to Govt and
Others ...Respondent(s).
Through: Mr. Saqib Shabir, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
25.02.2026
Caveat 202/2026
1. With the appearance of Mr. Saqib Shabir, Advocate, learned counsel
for the Respondent No. 6/Caveator, the Caveat stands discharged.
WP(C) 315/2026
1. Mr. Saqib Shabir, Advocate, who was already on caveat on behalf of
the respondent No. 6 appears and accepts notice in the matter for the said
respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and considered his
submissions.
3. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that a building permission vide
order dated 23.11.2024 came to be issued in favour of the petitioner No. 2 by
the competent authority for construction of a double storied residential house.
That the said permission was granted in favour of the petitioner No. 2 only
after all the concerned line departments issued NOC’s in respect of the matter.
That as soon as the construction material was dumped and the process of
construction was undertaken, the respondent No. 6 in pursuit of taking
advantage of the situation, filed a suit for declaration, partition and possession
in the Court of ld Munsiff Ganderbal, wherein an order of status quo came to
be passed by the Court. That the said order of status quo came to be modified
subsequently with the permission to the petitioners to proceed with the
construction. That being aggrieved of the modified order of the ld. Civil
Court, the respondent No. 6 challenged the same through the medium of a
miscellaneous appeal before the Court of ld. Principal District Judge,
Ganderbal, but no stay order was granted by the ld. Appellate Court. That
failing on every front to stop the construction, the respondent No. 6 managed
to get the order of building permission placed into abeyance from the Office
of the Block Development Officer which had issued the same. That the
petitioners have been left with no option but to approach this Court through
the medium of the instant petition for seeking the quashment of the order dated
15.12.2025 with a further direction for prohibiting the respondents from
interfering in the constructional process already undertaken by them on
Khasra No. 44 Revenue Estate Wayil, as per the orders of the ld. Civil Courts.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the
provisions of the Govt Order No. 75-RD&PR of 2022 dated 01.04.2022, any
person aggrieved of the building permission having been granted by the
competent authority in exercise of its powers under Govt Order 11-RD&PR
of 2022, dated: 22.01.2022 has to approach the Deputy Commissioner
concerned through the medium of an appeal within a period of 30 days which
has not been done in the case. It is submitted that the competent committee
issued the building permission in the light of the orders passed by the Civil
Court which is seized of the dispute between the parties in which the
petitioners have been allowed to raise the construction.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
land constituting the site of construction has already fallen in the share of the
petitioner No. 1 who has been in the possession of the same since long. He
submitted that the other side has raised a technical objection that the building
permission has been issued in the name of the son of the land owner i.e.
petitioner No. 2 and not in the name of petitioner No. 1. The learned counsel
submitted that the issuance of the building permission in the name of the
petitioner No. 2 being the son of the petitioner No. 1/land owner shall not
make any difference as there is the consent of the father/petitioner No. 1 in
the issuance of the same. The learned counsel, however, also submitted that if
the competent committee feels it appropriate to rectify the error, they can re-
issue the building permission in the name of the petitioner No. 1/land owner.
The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the
construction has already been undertaken and is now in the midway which has
suffered a halt on account of the passing of the impugned abeyance order by
the BDO concerned without any legal justification. He submitted that the
petitioner’s family has been badly suffering for want of residential
accommodation and their fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article
21 of the Constitution of the Country stands infringed.
The learned counsel further submitted that in the backdrop of the order
of learned Munsiff, Ganderbal, permitting the petitioners to raise the
construction, the NOC already given by the Tehsildar concerned cannot be
supposed to be illegal or malafide.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the private respondent No.
6/Caveator that the respondent No. 6 upon knowing about the building
permission with the start of the construction by the petitioners approached the
Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, with an application seeking
cancellation of the permission and initiation of enquiry against the Tehsildar,
Ganderbal for his recommendation regarding the issuance of said permission.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the private respondent No.6
that it is the petitioner No. 1-Father of the building permission holder, who is
recorded as a co-sharer and is arrayed as a party in the civil suit but the
building permission has been issued in favour of the petitioner No. 2 who
happens to be the son of the petitioner No. 1.
9. It is reiterated by the learned counsel that the private respondent No. 6
after learning about the building permission approached the competent
authority of Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal with her grievance who
initiated process on the same and as an initial step directed the placing of
building permission in abeyance.
10. The Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, suggested the
learned counsel for both the contesting parties that let the Deputy
Commissioner, Ganderbal, be directed to proceed expeditiously on the
application dated 23.10.2025 of the private respondent No. 6 i.e. Mst. Nabla
Akther D/O. Habeeb Parray R/O. Managam Chattergul, Ganderbal in
accordance with law after associating both the parties i.e. the petitioners as
well as the respondent No. 6 in the process by affording them reasonable
opportunity of being heard and to put forward their respective stands, if any,
in respect of their entitlements so that the matter is decided by him at an
earliest without any prejudice and inconvenience to the parties.
11. The learned counsel for the contesting parties present in the Court fairly
agreed with the suggestion of the Court and, as such, the matter is taken up
for disposal at this threshold stage and is accordingly disposed of with the
direction to the ld. Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, to expeditiously
proceed on the application dated 23.10.2025 already filed by the private
respondent Mst. Nabla Akhter with the association of both the parties i.e. the
petitioners and the respondent No. 6 by affording them reasonable opportunity
of being heard and to put forward their respective stands in respect of their
entitlements.
12. The ld. Deputy Commissioner concerned shall dispose of the matter
within a period four weeks.
13. Let a copy of this order along with the copy of the petition be forwarded
to the ld. Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal for compliance.
14. Disposed of.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
25.02.2026
Shahid Manzoor
