HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2943/2025 CM No. 6748/2025 Naresh Kumar …..Appellant(s)/petitioner(s) Through: Mr. G S Thakur, Advocate Vs J&K Special Tribunal Th. its Chairman, Jammu and another .…. Respondents Through: Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. S S Nanda, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 18.10.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against notice issued by the respondents under Section 7(3) of J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 on 29.09.2025 has been disposed of on the ground that the same has been rendered infructuous. 2. Issue Notice to the respondent. Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard and considered. 4. It appears that a notice under Section 7(3) of the Control of Building Operation Act, was issued by the respondents against the petitioner on 29.09.2025 whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the unauthorized construction of Hotel namely Shree Sr. No. 67 WP (C) No. 2943/2025 Palace, Katra within a period of 05 days. It was further provided that in default, the said unauthorized construction shall be removed by the enforcement wing of the Katra Development Authority at the cost of petitioner. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the learned J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. Vide impugned order the learned Tribunal disposed of the appeal as having been rendered infructuous on the ground that the demolition date has already elapsed. 5. The course adopted by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law because the appeal of the petitioner cannot be termed to have been rendered infructuous merely because 05 days period within which the petitioner was asked to remove the unauthorized construction had elapsed. In the demolition notice it was clearly stipulated that in case the petitioner does not remove the unauthorized construction within 05 days the said construction would be removed by Katra Development Authority at the cost of the petitioner. Thus, even after the lapse of 05 days, the threat of demolition of the premises of the petitioner subsists and in fact, it becomes more pronounced inasmuch as after 05 days, the demolition can be executed by the respondents at the cost of the petitioner. In this view of the matter the observation of the learned Tribunal that the appeal has been rendered infructuous is wholly misconceived. WP (C) No. 2943/2025 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the Tribunal for its disposal on merits in accordance with law. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 18.10.2025 Tarun, PS Mahavir Singh 2025.10.18 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document