HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 2616/2023 Date of pronouncement:22.12.2025 Date of uploading: 23.12.2025 Abdul Aziz Dar, Age 78 years S/o Ghulam Nabi Dar R/o Habak, Naseeb Bagh, Srinagar Proprietor Hotel Grand Boulevard, Dalgate, Srinagar. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Nisar Ahmed, Advocate. q vs 01. Government of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar. 02.Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, Srinagar. 03.Vice Chairman, J&K Lake Conservation & Management Authority, Srinagar. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 22.12.2025 01. Petitioner is aggrieved of Order bearing No. Div.Com/Ps/Misc/2020/2766-68 dated 07.01.2020 issued by respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, Srinagar, vide which commercial buildings/ hotel of the petitioner has been directed to be sealed, primarily on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. 02. The case set out by the petitioner is that he is owner in possession of two double storeyed buildings with attic, a single storeyed building and 02 three storeyed buildings along with land underneath and appurtenant thereto measuring 05 Kanals, 04 Marlas and 08 sqfts., falling under Khasra Nos. 1197/656/367 Min, 371, 383 Min, 1205/372, 1214/653/605/379 Min, 607/380, 384, bearing Khewat Nos. 290, 298 and Khata Nos. 364, 372 situate at Mouza Buchwara, Boulevard Road, District Srinagar. Sr. No. 26 WP(C) No. 2616/2023 Page No. 2 Hotel was constructed by his predecessor-in-interest, which was duly registered with the Tourism Department under Tourist Trade Act. It has a huge chunk of land measuring more than 05 Kanals and 04 Marlas with adequate parking facility. It is contention of the petitioner that he has, all along, followed terms and conditions of Tourist Trade Act and has never violated any law. 03. It is further contention of the petitioner that since one of the buildings of the hotel in question was in a dilapidated condition, he approached the competent authority for requisite repairs. On the advise of the said authority, he approached this Court and this Court vide order dated 14.03.2018 allowed the petitioner to make repairs in the said hotel. Pursuant to the said order, according to the petitioner, minor repairs were made but no fresh construction was raised by him. The repairs were affected by the petitioner under the supervision of the authorities of J&K Lake Conservation and Management Authority, Srinagar. 04. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Srinagar without spot verification and competence in the matter, vide impugned order, directed hotel of the petitioner to be sealed. It is contention of the petitioner that impugned order does not spell out the violation alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. He has also stated to have preferred a representation before the respondents, but of no avail. 05. Petitioner has questioned the impugned order primarily on the ground that respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Srinagar lacks jurisdiction. 06. Reply stands filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 i.e., Vice- chairman, J&K Lake Conservation & Management Authority, Srinagar. It is contention of the answering respondent that it had proceeded on the directions of respondent No. 2. Pertinently, respondent No. 3 has admitted in para 10 of the reply that petitioner had made construction, in pursuance to the High Court direction. 07. Mr. Nisar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of order dated 04.10.2023, passed by a co-ordinate Bench WP(C) No. 2616/2023 Page No. 3 of this Court in case titled “Najeeb Ahmad Sidiqi vs. UT of J&K and Ors.” [“WP(C) No. 618/2020”] to claim parity. 08. A perusal of the order dated 11.08.2025, passed in this case, reveals that Mr. Illyas Laway, learned Government Advocate had sought disposal of present petition on similar lines. 09. There is no dispute to the statutory position that it is the authority under the Municipal Corporation Act, who is vested with the jurisdiction to pass an order where violation with respect to the erection of building is committed. Admittedly, Divisional Commissioner is not vested with the power to pass such an order. He is neither an authority under the Municipal Corporation Act nor has jurisdiction to order sealing of a building, on the ground of alleged violations. Respondent No. 3-Vice Chairman, J&K Lake Conservation & Management Authority, Srinagar, has fairly admitted in its response that petitioner in the present case had raised construction, pursuant to the permission granted by this Court. 10. In view of the above, impugned order is patently bad for want of jurisdiction and is required to be quashed. As such, impugned order is set aside. 11. However, it is made clear that Commissioner Srinagar, Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to inspect the building in question and in case any violation is found, he shall be at liberty to proceed strictly as per the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act. 12. Disposed of, along with connected CM(s). 13. Meanwhile, interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge Srinagar 22.12.2025 Sushant Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes/No