No Separate Demolition Notice Required For Persons Not Named In Official Records: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that where an administrative authority initiates demolition or encroachment removal proceedings on the basis of contemporaneous official records, it is not obliged to issue notices to persons whose names do not figure in those records merely because they subsequently assert independent private or contractual claims over the property.The Court observed that administrative authorities are expected to proceed on the basis of official records available before them and such action cannot be faulted merely because third parties later claim rights over the property.Dismissing a writ petition challenging a demolition communication issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Leh, the Court held that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked in the abstract and the requirement of notice has to be examined with reference to the person against whom the authority was legally required to proceed. “….The requirement of notice has to be examined in the context of the person against whom the authority was legally required to proceed. Once the competent authority proceeded against the person who stood reflected in the official records as the registered proprietor of the establishment, the petitioners cannot successfully complain of violation of the principles of natural justice merely because no independent notice was issued to them”, the court emphasised.A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by the former directors of a struck-off company challenging the demolition of a tourist resort known as "The Last Resort" situated at Palam, Spituk, Leh. The petitioners claimed that while carrying on business in the tourism sector in the Union Territory of Ladakh, they had entered into arrangements with the private respondents in respect of land situated at Palam, Spituk, where they established a tourist resort under the name "The Last Resort." According to them, substantial investments were made in developing the resort by raising temporary structures and creating facilities for tourists. They further asserted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the premises were requisitioned by the District Administration and utilised as a COVID Isolation Centre. The controversy arose after the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Leh, issued a communication dated 17 May 2022 directing removal of the alleged encroachment from State land. The petitioners challenged the action primarily on the ground that no notice had been served upon them before the demolition proceedings were initiated, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.Initially, several ancillary reliefs, including compensation, alternate land and restoration of business, were sought. However, during the hearing, the petitioners confined the writ petition solely to the challenge against the demolition communication. The official respondents opposed the petition, contending that the land was State land and that the resort stood registered in the name of respondent No. 14, Tsering Angchok, both in the records of the Tourism Department and the Power Development Department. It was further submitted that the electricity connection also stood in his name and, therefore, notices preceding the demolition action were issued to him before removal of the encroachment was undertaken. The private respondents also questioned the maintainability of the petition, contending that the company through which the petitioners claimed to have carried on business had already been struck off from the Register of Companies and that the dispute essentially involved contested questions relating to title, possession and contractual arrangements, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Court's Observations:The Court observed that once the petitioners had restricted their challenge only to the demolition communication, the sole question before the Court was whether the authorities were under a legal obligation to issue notice to the petitioners before initiating demolition proceedings. Examining the record, the Court found that before issuing the impugned communication, the authorities had verified the official records maintained by the Tourism Department and the Power Development Department. Those records consistently reflected respondent No. 14 as the registered proprietor of the resort, and the electricity connection also stood in his name.The Court noted that acting upon these contemporaneous official records, the competent authority proceeded against respondent No. 14 and issued the notice contemplated under law before initiating demolition proceedings. The Bench further found that the petitioners had failed to place on record any official document demonstrating that, on the date the demolition communication was issued, they were recognised by any statutory authority as owners, proprietors, lessees or occupiers of the establishment. The...

No Separate Demolition Notice Required For Persons Not Named In Official Records: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

No Separate Demolition Notice Required For Persons Not Named In Official Records: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers