The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed Hajira’s writ petition, holding that an unchallenged Tribunal order denying impleadment could not be indirectly assailed through a challenge to the final order and a clarificatory corrigendum
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a corrigendum issued by a Tribunal on the same date as the original order does not create a fresh cause of action if it only clarifies the earlier order without substantially changing its operative part.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by Hajira, who claimed to be a neighbour of respondent No.6.
The case was titled Hajira v. J&K Special Tribunal & Ors..
Petitioner Challenged Tribunal Order
The petitioner sought quashing of an order passed by the Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal along with a corrigendum issued later.
The Tribunal had allowed a revision petition filed by respondent No.6. It also directed regularisation of additional construction under the “Deemed Permission” clause of the Jammu & Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000.
The petitioner additionally challenged an earlier order dated 26 September 2023 through which the Tribunal had rejected her impleadment application.
Corrigendum Was Only Clarificatory
The High Court examined the corrigendum and found that it neither created a new right in favour of respondent No.6 nor affected any vested right of the petitioner.
The Court noted that the original order had already directed regularisation of the construction and issuance of a completion certificate, subject to compliance with land laws.
According to the Court, the corrigendum merely clarified that respondent No.6 would have to pay the required regularisation fee. It also clarified that the construction fell within the deemed permission clause.
Background Of The Dispute
Respondent No.6 had obtained building permission for land situated in Srinagar. Authorities later revalidated the permission.
The petitioner alleged that respondent No.6 had sold part of the land and obtained revalidation without proper ownership verification.
Construction began in 2021. According to the petitioner, respondent No.6 raised additional floors beyond the sanctioned plan.
Respondent No.6 later sought permission for additional construction. However, the competent authority rejected the request.
Aggrieved by the rejection, respondent No.6 approached the J&K Special Tribunal by filing a revision petition.
Tribunal Rejected Impleadment Plea
During the proceedings, the petitioner sought impleadment as a party respondent.
The Tribunal rejected the application through a reasoned order. It held that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The Tribunal also observed that questions relating to ownership and title fell outside its jurisdiction.
The High Court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the impleadment order for nearly one and a half years.
Later, the Tribunal allowed the revision petition. It directed regularisation of the additional construction subject to payment of fees, compliance with relevant laws, and issuance of a completion certificate.
Impleadment Order Had Attained Finality
The High Court held that the petitioner could not indirectly challenge the final order after allowing the impleadment order to attain finality.
The Court further held that entertaining the writ petition would effectively amount to sitting in appeal over an order that had already attained conclusiveness.
Court Examined Locus Standi
While examining the petitioner’s locus standi, the Court relied on Jashbai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that a person invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 must ordinarily possess a personal or individual right in the subject matter.
The Court also relied on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector, where the Supreme Court held that only an aggrieved person can maintain such proceedings.
Applying these principles, the High Court found that the petitioner had failed to establish infringement of any legally protected right.
Collateral Challenge Not Permissible
The Court also relied on the settled principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted indirectly.
For this proposition, the Court referred to NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA & Others and State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder.
The Court observed that permitting a collateral challenge to the final order would effectively grant the petitioner a status already denied through a subsisting judicial order.
Court Called Litigation Vexatious
The High Court also examined the petitioner’s conduct. It observed that the pleadings and repeated attempts to obstruct proceedings indicated vexatious litigation rather than protection of a legal right.
The Court reiterated that parties cannot invoke Article 226 jurisdiction for settling personal disputes or pursuing motivated litigation.
Petition Dismissed
Finally, the High Court held that the impugned orders did not suffer from illegality, arbitrariness, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
