Sr. No. 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1607/2025 CM(4122/2025) FATIMA …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. S.N. Ratanpuri, Advocate Vs. GOVERNMENT OF J AND K (HOUSING AND URBAN) AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Nowbahar Khan, Assisting Counsel, vice Mr. Illayas Nazir Laway, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 14-07-2025 In brief the case set out in the petition is that petitioner (Fatima) owns a land measuring 02 Kanals, comprised in Survey No. 7 in the revenue estate of village Sonamarg, District Ganderbal. And for she intends to construct a residential house, she applied for the building permission to the Block Development Officer, Gund (R.4). And, who vide communication dated 03.12.2024, sought no objection certificates from the concerned departments. It is averred that the petitioner obtained and submitted all the necessary approvals/sanctions, as also the resolution from the local village Committee in this regard and even remitted a requisite fee on 20.01.2025. However, even though more than 06 months have passed, the building permissions, the petitioner had applied for, had not been granted. And, for no valid justification/reasons have been assigned either. Rather, on the contrary, one Anjum Majeed, who applied for permission to carry out construction upon the adjoining land, comprised in the same Survey number and on the same date has since been granted approvals. Thus, the action of respondent authorities is apparently irrational and arbitrary. Further, he submits that there could not have been any dispute or confusion even as regards the jurisdiction qua the subject land as per the decision rendered by this Court in Charanpreet Singh Grewal Vs. Government of J&K and Ors in WP(C) No. 1335/2024, decided on 18.11.2024, for the subject land falls outside the jurisdiction of Sonamarg Development Authority. Thus, it is urged that the petitioner is a victim of apparent inaction and indecision of the respondent authorities. Served with an advance copy, Ms. Nowbahar Khan, learned Assisting Counsel, is present on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents submits for the matter is pending consideration before the competent authority, it would rather be expedient if the petition at hand is disposed of at this stage to enable the competent authority to consider the application moved by the petitioner and pass necessary orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner is in agreement with the course suggested by learned counsel for the respondents. However, he submits for a considerable time has already elapsed, it would just and expedient if the authorities are directed to decide the matter within a specified time. As to this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the competent authority shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. In the wake of the position sketched out above, and in terms of statement made by learned counsel for the parties, the petition is accordingly disposed of. This Court is sanguine that the competent authority shall make every possible endeavour to pass necessary orders, as indicated above, within the time suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, it is made clear that this order shall not constitute any expression of opinion on the merits of the case of either party. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 14-07-2025 Aadil