Serial No.182 Supplementary Cause List-I HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 700/2026 CM(1774/2026) Mohammad Amin Zargar. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. S. S. Rizvi, Advocate. Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Judge. ORDER 08.04.2026 01. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is the lawful owner in possession of land measuring 4 kanals falling under Khasra No. 604/69 situated at Lawaypora, Srinagar and his son who is working outside, is also the owner in possession of land measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas comprised in the same khasra number (total measuring 6 kanals 4 marlas) 02. The petitioner through the medium of the instant writ petition has called in question the order dated 13th January, 2026 bearing No. SMC/2026/3886 by virtue of which the Joint Commissioner (Planning), Srinagar Municipal Corporation pursuant to the approval of the competent authority dated 12th January, 2026 through online mode has accorded sanction in terms of Section 243 and 246 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 in favor of respondent No. 4-Bilal Ahmad Wani for construction of a basement plus four storeyed mixed-use building with basement floor as parking and ground floor as stilt parking with erection of compound walling on a plot of land measuring 6936-sft comprising in survey No. 1076/603/69 situated in estate Gund Hasi Bhat. 03. The said building permission granted by the competent authority pertains to the land falling under survey No. 1076/603/69 situated in estate Gund Hasi Bhat and not to the land of the petitioners 04. In the aforesaid backdrop, when the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the maintainability of the instant writ petition and also the locus of the petitioner to call in question order dated 13th January, 2026, he failed to convince this Court as to how and under what circumstances, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said permission, when as a matter fact, the same does not pertain to his land. 05. There is no averment in the instant writ petition justifying the claim of the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order and thus, in absence of any cause of action or for that matter, locus to challenge the order which pertains to the respondent No. 4, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has failed to convince this Court with respect to infringement of any of his legal, fundamental or statutory rights to challenge the impugned building permission, which pertains to the respondent No. 4 and there is no whisper in the said order about the land owned and possession by the petitioner. 06. The writ petition is utterly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine along with connected CM(s). (Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge SRINAGAR: 08.04.2026 “HAMID” Abdul Hamid Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 08.04.2026