ORDER 1. Instant application came to be filed on 9th of July, 2007 on the ground that an appeal titled Ravi Mahajan v. Executive Officer Jammu Municipality came to be filed by the appellant against the order No. 561/BI/2002 before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 7th of October, 2004. The said appeal was contested by the Respondent no. 1 and as per order dated 13th of October, 2007 directed the respondent no; 1 to reconsider the matter and accord sanction with condition what-so -- ever. Further stated that the parties were directed to appear before the Building Operation Controlling Authority on 13th Of. Nov, 2006. In pursuance to the order passed by this Tribunal, parties appeared before the BOCA on the given date and other dates thereafter fixed by the authority for sanction of permission for up gradation of over head bridge connecting two buildings of the appellant. Respondent no. 2 vide his order no. 392/BS/06 dated 13.3.2007 has rejected the permission for construction of over head bridge without mentioning the reasons much less the plausible reasons and also without considering the orders passed by this Tribunal. The appeal of the appellant which was disposed of by this Tribunal , as such is sought to be readmitted and required to be heard by this Tribunal. Further stated that at the time of filing the original appeal, respondent no. 1 who is to be an Officer of Municipality was competent to decide the application of all sort filed for grant of permission of erection of building etc. After the Municipal Election were held, Respondent no. 2 have been appointed to do the said business. In the present application Respondent no. 2 has been arrayed for the reasons contained in Annexure-B as order has been passed by him. In the said circumstances, it can not be said that present application is non maintainable. Hence the present appeal to be re-admitted at its original and same may be heard in the interest of justice and fair play. On the other hand respondent has filed his objection that as per the direction of this Tribunal dated 30.10.2006 that the appellant had appeared before the BOCA authorities and BOCA authorities in its meeting decided the application for grant of permission for up gradation and construction. The matter was informed by the Jt. On the other hand respondent has filed his objection that as per the direction of this Tribunal dated 30.10.2006 that the appellant had appeared before the BOCA authorities and BOCA authorities in its meeting decided the application for grant of permission for up gradation and construction. The matter was informed by the Jt. Commissioner JMC Jammu to the appellant vide Order No. 392/BS/2006 dated 30.03.2007 that the BOCA in its meeting dated 12.03.2007 pointed " That raising any type of construction on or above the public lane can not be allowed". 2. In view of the decision taken by the BOCA authorities whereby against for grant of permission for raising the over head bridge has rejected. Further stated that readmission of the appeal is not maintainable and more so the same hopelessly time-barred. Subsequently, Learned counsel for the applicant has also made an other application treating the application for readmission of the appeal as a fresh appeal against the order passed by the respondent Municipality on the ground that Municipality vide its order dated 30.03.2007 has rejected the permission for construction of overhead bridge without mentioning the reasons and also without considering the directions issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal for sanctioning of the permission to the applicant with stringent conditions and undertakings but the Municipality without the application of mind has rejected the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Challenging the same in any other forum . The order dated 30.3.2007 which the respondent Municipality has passed in certainly contemptuous as it has not complied the direction issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Thus, the applicant thought it appropriate to make prayed for re-hearing the appeal by re-admission ,the said appeal sent for reconsideration. 3. Further stated that reconsideration is nothing less than an order to remand as such Municipality was under an obligation to return the findings recorded by it to this Hon'ble Tribunal for its further order as required under Order 41 Rule-23 of C.P.C. Hence in the present application/appeal be reheard in order to avoid Municipality of the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Applicant has argued that the application deserves too be treated as an appeal and order of the Municipality dated 12.3.2007 deserved to be set aside and matter under may be referred to the concerned Municipal authorities for reconsideration for granting the sanction in favour of the appellant/applicant to construct the over head bridge. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Applicant has argued that the application deserves too be treated as an appeal and order of the Municipality dated 12.3.2007 deserved to be set aside and matter under may be referred to the concerned Municipal authorities for reconsideration for granting the sanction in favour of the appellant/applicant to construct the over head bridge. Further argued that under order 43 Rule 33, this Tribunal has vast power to remand the case for reconsideration and other side must have no objection if the matter be send back to the Municipal authorities for according sanction in favour of the appellant/applicant for constructing the over head bridge over the property. Learned Counsel for the respondent (Non-applicant) has argued that instant application deserve to be dismissed as the instant application is not in accordance with the law. Moreover, the appellant/applicant intends too make the construction over the public land which is not permissible under law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred section 4 of Construction of Building Operation Regulation Act, 1998, section 4 of which is reproduced as under: Application for permission: (1) Every person intending to undertake or carry out the development of any site or re-erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation or layout any means of access to a road shall apply in Form `A' to the Chairman of the concerned Authority. Such application shall accompany the following documents: (i) 8 copies of the Building Plans duly drawn and signed either by an Architect registered with the counsel of Architects or by a draftsman registered with the Concerned Municipality/Town Area Committee/Notified Area Committee: (ii) An attested copy of the proof of ownership record of the land. (2) The building Plan shall indicate the following details; (i) The key plan of the location which shall clearly and unambiguously describe the location of the proposed building: (ii) The nature and the use of the existing site and the use of the proposed building; (iii) Sections and elevations of the buildings in each floor; (iv) Specifications of the building: (v) The position of the door/windows and drainage outlets with reference to the adjacent site; (vi) The positions of approach to the site 6. Further argued that the instant application are misconceived and deserved to be dismissed as the appellant/applicant was required file an appeal against the order dated 12.3.2007 that a period of seven days and instead of filing an appeal has preferred the instant application and it does not required to be considered, as the applicant has failed to make out a case for seeking the permission from Municipal authorities for erection /re-erection of the building and in case such type of applications are allowed by this Tribunal, it would open the flood gate of new type of litigations and everybody would make an endeavor to make construction over the public property and public at large can put to suffer for convenience of such individual. 7. I have heard and perused the record produced by the Municipality which reveals that an appellant/applicant intend to construct over head bridge from the floor level of a lane and permission for constructing the same has been refused. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, there is no merit in the present application which are rejected as the case of applicant does not squarely fall within the purview of Regulation 4 of Control of Building Operation Regulation Act 1998 as applicant is not owner of the property and wants to raise construction over lane which is public property. Office is directed to send the record of the Municipality forthwith and file shall consign to records after due compilation.