12 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court Case: LPA No. 138/2022 Jammu Development Authority and Anr. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate v/s Sanjeev Kumar and ors. …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. ORDER 29.04.2025 CM No. 7195/2022 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 219 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 20.01.2022 passed by the writ court in WP(C) No. 58/2022, titled, “Sanjeev Kumar and ors. vs. Jammu Development Authority and anr”. 2. It is contended by the applicant that the matter being quite old, so some time was consumed for collecting the record from different sections, as such, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. 3. The respondents have filed the response stating therein that in terms of order dated 12.09.2022, applicants have rejected the claim of the non- 2 LPA No. 138/2022 applicants/writ petitioners for refund of building permission fee and once they had accepted the judgment, they cannot now take a u-turn and file appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the order dated 20.01.2022, which is subject matter of the appeal, reveals that the non-applicants had filed a writ petition in the year 2022, after their claim for release of building permission fee of Rs. 11,81,820/- deposited by them on 17.03.2007 was not considered by the appellants. It appears that the said writ petition was decided on the very first day, when it was listed before the learned writ court. The applicants have pleaded that the case was quite old and as such, sometime was consumed in getting the record, due to which delay has occasioned in assailing the order dated 20.01.2022. This assertion of the applicants is substantiated by the fact that the claim was made by the non-applicants in respect of refund of building permission fee deposited in the year, 2007. 6. In view of above, we are satisfied that the applicants have demonstrated sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal against the order dated 22.01.2022 passed by the learned writ court. Accordingly, the condonation application is allowed and delay of 219 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 7. Application is disposed of. LPA No. 138/2022 1. Notice, waived by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondents. 3 LPA No. 138/2022 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the order passed by the learned writ court is contradictory and cryptic in nature because on one hand, the appellants were directed to consider the claim of the respondents/writ petitioners for refund of amount of Rs. 11,81.820/- and on the other hand, learned writ court directed that failure to refund the amount in question to the respondents after the stipulated period shall entitle them to an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of actual payment. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents in turn has submitted that the appellants have admitted the receipt of amount and as such, they cannot deny their liability to refund the same once their building permission was kept in abeyance. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, after they submitted that the matter be considered finally. 5. The record depicts that the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners-respondents herein by pleading that they had applied for a building permission for the construction of 366 residential apartments at village Sunjwan, Tehsil Bahu, District Jammu and sanction/permission thereof came to be accorded by the appellants, after receiving building permission fee of Rs. 11,81,820/- in the form of Demand Draft No. 225296 dated 17.03.2007 vide receipt No. 682 dated 20.03.2007. The sanction accorded in favour of the respondents was kept in abeyance by the appellants in terms of order dated 05.02.2008 and same was never revived/restored by the appellants. The respondents demanded refund of the building permission fee, but the same was not released in their favour, which prompted them to submit a 4 LPA No. 138/2022 representation to the appellants dated 07.12.2021 and when the representation was not considered, they filed the writ petition. 6. It appears that the writ petition was decided on the very first day when the same was listed before the writ court with the following directions: “Having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in the petition coupled with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there seemingly is no need to keep this petition pending, as such, is taken up for final disposal, at this stage with the consent of the appearing counsel for the parties and is, accordingly, disposed of as follow: i) Respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners for refund of the amount of Rs. 11,81,820/- (Rupees Eleven Lac Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Only) stated to have been deposited as building permission fee in the shape of Demand Draft No. 225296 dated 17.03.2007 vide receipt No. 682 dated 20.03.2007 within two weeks’ from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law. Failure to refund the amount in question to the petitioners after the said stipulated period shall entitle the petitioners to an interest @ 6 percent on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment thereof to the petitioners.” 7. As the order dated 20.01.2022 was not complied with, the respondents filed contempt petition against the appellants. The record further divulges that the learned writ court on 23.08.2022 while issuing notice to the contemnors in the Contempt Petition bearing CCP(S) No. 215/2022 in WP(C) No. 58/2022, directed the contemnors therein to deposit the amount with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks. 8. After having gone through the order impugned dated 20.01.2022, this Court finds that the order passed by the learned writ court is contradictory in nature. Though, the learned writ court had left the appellants free to consider the claim of the respondents for refund of Rs. 11,81,820/- deposited by the respondents as building permission fee, but simultaneously observed that failure to refund the amount in question to the writ petitioners-respondents herein after the stipulated period shall entitle them to interest @ 6% from the 5 LPA No. 138/2022 date of filing of the writ petition till actual payment. By passing the subsequent direction, the learned writ court virtually issued a mandamus to the appellants to release the amount in favour of respondents, thereby denuding the appellants of their right to consider the claim of the respondents for refund of the above mentioned amount as per the initial part of the directions. Subsequent direction for award of interest @ 6% in the event of failure to refund the amount in fact nullifies the earlier direction issued by the learned writ court, whereby the appellants were directed to consider the claim of the respondents for refund of the amount. The learned writ court could have issued the writ of mandamus to the appellants for payment of the above mentioned amount, but only after having the version of the appellants as well. 9. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order dated 20.01.2022 is required to be modified and is modified as under: “Appellants to consider the claim of the respondents for refund of the amount of Rs. 11,81,820/- (Rupees Eleven Lac Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Only) stated to have been deposited as building permission fee in the shape of Demand Draft No. 225296 dated 17.03.2007 vide receipt No. 682 dated 20.03.2007 within two weeks’ from the date of receipt of the order in accordance with law. In the event, the respondents are found entitled to the amount, the same be released in their favour within two weeks and failure to refund the amount in question to the respondents after the stipulated period, shall entitle the respondents to interest @ 6 per cent on the said amount 6 LPA No. 138/2022 from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment thereof to the respondents.” 10. Disposed of. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 29.04.2025 Karam Chand/Secy. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No KARAM CHAND 2025.05.02 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document