Building permission petition dismissed based on High Court orders, pandemic impact on limitation periods

The court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the building permission rejection, citing compliance with High Court orders protecting temple properties. The plea for deemed permission was rejected due to the pandemic's impact on limitation periods. The court found no merit in arguments regarding lease deed validity or necessity for leasing temple property. The writ petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order rejecting building permission.
2. Deemed permission under Clause 5.1 of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (Building) Bye-laws, 2011.
3. Validity of lease deeds executed by the Mahant.
4. Compliance with High Court orders regarding protection of religious properties.
5. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of alternate remedy of revision.

Detailed Analysis:

Quashing of the Order Rejecting Building Permission
The petitioner sought the quashing of the order dated 09.07.2020 issued by the Joint Commissioner (Planning), Srinagar Municipal Corporation, which rejected his application for building permission. The petitioner argued that he had legally acquired the land through valid lease deeds and had fulfilled all requisite formalities, including obtaining necessary NOCs from various authorities.

Deemed Permission under Clause 5.1 of the Bye-laws
The petitioner argued that the authority should be deemed to have accorded the sanction for building permission as per Clause 5.1 of the Bye-laws, which states that if the authority fails to refuse the sanction within sixty days, the applicant can proceed with the construction. The petitioner claimed that all formalities were completed by 18.02.2020, and the authority did not communicate the refusal within the stipulated sixty days.

The respondents countered this argument by citing the unprecedented situation caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to a lockdown starting from 19.03.2020. The Supreme Court had extended the limitation periods during the pandemic, and this was argued to apply to the period for granting or refusing building permissions as well.

Validity of Lease Deeds Executed by the Mahant
Respondents argued that the lease deeds executed by the Mahant in favor of the petitioner were not tenable under the law. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in Sridhar Suar v. Shri Jagan Nath Temple, which held that a manager could not grant a permanent lease without unavoidable necessity. The petitioner, in his rejoinder, attempted to justify the lease on grounds of necessity, stating that the funds were needed for repairs and other expenses related to the temple.

The court noted that the necessity was not mentioned in the lease deeds and appeared to be an afterthought. The court emphasized that any necessity for leasing out temple property should have been brought before the court that issued the original protective order regarding temple properties.

Compliance with High Court Orders
The respondents highlighted that the High Court had issued orders in OWP No. 610/2007, directing the state to protect religious properties. The Divisional Commissioner, in compliance with these orders, had directed the Srinagar Municipal Corporation to cancel building permissions granted on temple properties. The court found that the land in question was indeed temple property and that the directions of the High Court and Divisional Commissioner were binding.

Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy available under Section 403 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000, which allows for revision by the government. The petitioner contended that the availability of an alternate remedy does not bar the filing of a writ petition. The court chose not to decide on this issue, given its conclusion on the merits of the case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the rejection of the building permission was justified based on the High Court's orders and the Divisional Commissioner's directions. The plea of deemed permission was also rejected due to the extension of limitation periods during the Covid-19 pandemic. The court found no merit in the arguments regarding the validity of the lease deeds or the necessity for leasing out the temple property. The writ petition was thus dismissed, with no order as to costs.

---