Court reaffirms that areas falling within the jurisdiction of the J&K Lakes Conservation and Management Authority (LCMA) are excluded from the ambit of Panchayati Raj–granted building permits as per Government Orders; related challenges by third parties without direct aggrievement are not maintainable. Confirms and operationalizes statutory exclusions; binding on lower courts in J&K.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/688/2025 of INHABITANTS OF BLOCK HARWAN Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (REVENUE) |
| CNR | JKHC010013712025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir |
| Bench | Single Bench – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for all subordinate courts in J&K unless overturned by higher court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the statutory exclusion of LCMA areas from Panchayati Raj building permissions under the relevant Government Orders and Acts |
| Type of Law | Administrative, Municipal, Local Governance Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the J&K Lakes Conservation and Management Authority has jurisdiction, to the exclusion of Panchayati Raj institutions, for regulating and granting building permits? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that as per SRO 57 of 1998 and Government Order dated 01.04.2022, villages falling within LCMA jurisdiction are expressly excluded from the scope of Government Order dated 22.01.2022 under the Panchayati Raj Act. Thus, only the LCMA is competent to grant building permissions in its notified areas. Building permissions granted by Panchayati Raj authorities in such areas are not valid. Moreover, the petitioners had no locus standi since neither any building permission was granted to them nor any notice was served upon them. Challenges by unrelated third parties to notices served on others are not maintainable. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Not specified in judgment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | SRO 57 of 1998, Government Orders dated 22.01.2022 and 01.04.2022, Control of Building Operations Act, 1988, interpretation of statutory exclusion of powers. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners from Block Harwan challenged LCMA’s jurisdiction to issue construction notices, arguing for Panchayati Raj authorities’ competency per Government notifications. Respondents relied on SROs and orders stating LCMA’s jurisdiction prevailed. The Court found the relevant Government Order specifically excluded LCMA areas from Panchayati Raj authority, and that petitioners lacked locus as they had not received any impugned notices nor building permissions. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in the Union Territory of J&K |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India in cases involving similar statutory interplay between special area authorities and local governance; not binding outside J&K |
| Overrules | None explicitly mentioned |
| Distinguishes | Not specified in the judgment |
| Follows | Follows and affirms the operation of SRO 57 of 1998, Government Order dated 22.01.2022, and Government Order dated 01.04.2022 regarding exclusions of authority |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that Government Order No. 11-RD&PR of 2022 (Panchayati Raj Act building permissions) does not apply to areas under the jurisdiction of special local authorities like LCMA as per Government Order dated 01.04.2022.
- Building permissions granted by Panchayati Raj authorities in such excluded areas are invalid.
- Only directly aggrieved parties (i.e., those served with a notice/order) have locus standi to challenge individual notices/orders from the LCMA.
- The appropriate remedy for individuals aggrieved by LCMA orders under the Control of Building Operations Act is to appeal to the designated Appellate Authority, not through writ petitions by third parties.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined statutory instruments (SRO 57 of 1998, Government Orders dated 22.01.2022 and 01.04.2022) delineating jurisdictions of LCMA and Panchayati Raj authorities.
- It determined that Government Order dated 01.04.2022 explicitly excludes areas under LCMA (or other similar authorities) from the applicability of Panchayati Raj Act permissions regime.
- The Court noted that petitioners tried to justify Panchayati Raj permissions by a combined reading of other government notifications, but the exclusion order was decisive.
- The Court found that the petitioners had neither been issued any relevant building permissions nor were served with the notices they challenged.
- Accordingly, the Court found the writ petition misconceived for lack of locus standi, and observed that such individual grievances (if any) should be raised by aggrieved persons themselves through prescribed appellate procedures.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted Block Harwan villages are governed by Panchayati Raj authorities, not LCMA.
- Sought declaration that the LCMA lacks jurisdiction and that only Panchayati Raj Institutions grant valid building permissions.
- Relied on Government Order dated 22.01.2022 to justify efforts and cited SRO 32 of 2019 for inclusion of villages in Panchayati Raj structure.
- Argued that notices issued by LCMA were without jurisdiction.
Respondent
- Asserted that the contested areas fall within the LCMA’s jurisdiction as per SRO 57 of 1998.
- Pointed out that LCMA alone is competent for regulating and granting construction permissions in those areas, to the exclusion of Panchayati Raj authorities, as per Government Order dated 01.04.2022.
- Highlighted the requisite legal procedure for building permissions within LCMA jurisdiction, distinguishing LCMA’s domain from Panchayati Raj authorities’ functions.
- Stated that Government Orders and SROs clearly support LCMA’s powers and exclude its areas from the Panchayati Raj Act’s regime.
Factual Background
The petitioners, residents of several villages in Block Harwan, sought a writ declaring that the J&K Lake Conservation and Management Authority (LCMA) does not have jurisdiction over their areas. They claimed that, following their areas’ inclusion as Halqas in Block Harwan under the Panchayati Raj Act, building permissions were granted to residents by the Panchayati Raj authorities. However, after questions in the Legislative Assembly about unauthorized constructions, LCMA began issuing notices under the Control of Building Operations Act, alleging building law violations. The petitioners challenged these notices, contending that authority vested with Panchayati Raj institutions, not LCMA.
Statutory Analysis
- SRO 57 of 1998: Brings specified villages, including those in Block Harwan, within the jurisdiction of LCMA for building regulation.
- Government Order No. 11-RD&PR of 2022 (22.01.2022): Constituted an authority for granting permissions for construction in rural areas under the Panchayati Raj Act, but excluded areas under special authorities.
- Government Order dated 01.04.2022: Clarifies that the 22.01.2022 order does not apply in areas under Tourism Development Authorities or any other authority empowered by law, including LCMA.
- Control of Building Operations Act, 1988: Underpins LCMA’s legal authority to regulate and control building operations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The judgment is by a single judge; no separate concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, guidelines, or directions are stated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies the existing statutory regime and Government Orders excluding special authority areas from Panchayati Raj jurisdiction.