JUDGMENT : GITA MITTAL, J. 1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 27th July, 2017, whereby two writ petitions bearing Nos. OWP No. 355/2014 & OWP No. 359/2014 which were filed by Balwant Singh-appellant herein stand dismissed. 2. With the consent of the parties this appeal is taken up for consideration. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the available records. 3. The private respondent No. 5 before us, who is owning a piece of land in Khasra No. 518 of Village Paloura Tehsil and District Jammu, was desirous of raising construction for which purpose he had applied for building permission which was granted by Jammu Municipal Corporation vide order dated 23rd December, 2010. 4. The appellant filed a civil suit contending that respondent No. 5 was carrying on construction on his purchased land. In the suit, which was titled Balwant Singh and Ranbir Singh Vs. Naresh Abrol and Sansar Singh, the learned Munsiff, Jammu rejected the appellant’s application for interim injunction dated 28th December, 2012 held as follows:- “Accordingly in view of mandate of law supra beside discussion made herein above no injunction deserves to be granted in favour of plaintiffs as such ex-parte interim order is hereby vacated. The observations made above in the order are purely tentative which shall have no ill-effect on the merit of the case with this order the application stands disposed of and be made part of the main file after due compilation.” 5. We are informed by Mr. Rajneesh Oswal, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned Munsiff, Jammu was also rejected. 6. It is evident from the above that, so far as the ownership of the land on which respondent No. 5 was carrying construction is concerned, the same is the subject matter of consideration before the Civil Court. 7. It appears that having failed to obtain any prohibitory relief from the Civil Court, the appellant changed course and now started alleging that respondent No. 5 was carrying construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan. 8. 7. It appears that having failed to obtain any prohibitory relief from the Civil Court, the appellant changed course and now started alleging that respondent No. 5 was carrying construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan. 8. It appears that the Jammu Municipal Corporation took cognizance of certain violations of the sanctioned building plan by Naresh Abrol-respondent No. 5 herein and passed order/notice dated 22nd January, 2011 under Section 7 (3) of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988, whereby the appellant was asked to remove the unauthorized structure. 9. This order dated 22nd January, 2011 was the subject matter of challenge in file No. STJ/353/2011 filed by Naresh Abrol-respondent No. 5 herein. 10. It appears that Balwant Singh made an application dated 7th February, 2011 in the matter which was pending before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu for his impleadment, contending that respondent No. 5 had encroached upon his land under the garb of construction plan approved by the Jammu Municipal Corporation. This application came to be dismissed vide order dated 14th September, 2011. The challenge to the Tribunal’s order by way of OWP No. 1405/2011 & 1406/2011 was accepted by the learned Single Judge and by an order dated 23rd October, 2013, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions allowing the matter to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of applicable law. 11. In the order dated 18th November, 2013, the Tribunal observed that the dispute which was being considered was with regard to legality of the construction raised by respondent No. 5 and the action taken under the J&K Control of Building Operations Act by the Jammu Municipal Corporation. The objection of respondent No. 5 to the effect that the appellant had no locus standi to be impleaded in the dispute between the private land owner and the Jammu Municipal Corporation. The learned Tribunal also accepted the objection of respondent No. 5 that the issue with regard to the ownership of the land was pending adjudication in the Civil Court which had, prima-facie, not accepted the contentions of the appellant. The Tribunal, therefore, held that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the land dispute which would have to abide by the adjudication of the Civil Court. 12. The Tribunal, therefore, held that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the land dispute which would have to abide by the adjudication of the Civil Court. 12. In this background, the Tribunal also concluded that the appellant was not an interested party and placed reliance on the order dated 03rd April, 1992 passed by the Supreme Court in connection with case No. 3570 of 1991 in case titled Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and rejected the appellant’s application for impleadment vide order dated 18th November, 2013. 13. The J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu considered the matter at length and by its order dated 25th November, 2013 on the appeal being STJ/353/2011, opined and directed as follows:- “I have given my due consideration to the arguments advanced by both counsels of the parties and have also examined the records available on the file. The provisions of Master Plan clearly show that the owners of plot holders of the size like of appellant can cover upto 75% of their plot area. Similarly, rule 11(iii) of COBO Rule clearly indicates that the appellant is also entitled for 10% of the permissible ground coverage, meaning thereby that the appellant is entitled to cover 82.5% area of his plot, while raising construction. The appellant who was also present in person in the court before the undersigned during queries, deposed that it is a pre condition by JMC/respondent that a person can’t apply for Building Permission for more than 60% of plot area. In my opinion, the appellant has committed an offence and partially it is in the nature of minor offence, while partially it is in the nature of major violation. The construction has, as yet, not reached a stage that it cannot be brought in line with the law. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent/JMC is directed to allow the structure of the appellant to the extent of 82.5% of the plot area. The appellant shall pay a compounding fee of Rs. 50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per sft for area beyond that allowed as per Building Permission, upto 82.5% of the total plot area. It is further directed that appellant shall maintain proper rear set back, as prescribed in the Master Plan. The appellant shall pay a compounding fee of Rs. 50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per sft for area beyond that allowed as per Building Permission, upto 82.5% of the total plot area. It is further directed that appellant shall maintain proper rear set back, as prescribed in the Master Plan. The structure raised by the appellant in violation of the rear set back as well as beyond 82.5 % shall be demolished by the appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of this order on his own. In case of his failure to demolish within 30 days, the respondents/JMC shall remove it at the expenses of appellant. It is also ordered that the appellant shall raise the construction on Ground Floor and 1st Floor, strictly as per the Building Permission granted by the respondents/JMC, and shall not deviate from the sanctioned plan. The compounding fee shall be deposited by the appellant with the respondent/JMC within a period of one month from the date of order, failing which the appeal filed by the appellant shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the respondent/JMC will be at liberty to take action against the appellant, as per their impugned order/notice dated 22-01-2011. The stay order/status quo, issued in this case by this Tribunal shall stands vacated. The record of the respondent/JMC be returned alongwith copy of this order. File be consigned to records after due completion.” 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 contends that this order has been complied with till date. It is also submitted that respondent No. 5 has also deposited the compounding fee on 22nd March, 2014 with the Jammu Municipal Corporation. 15. Be that as it may, for the view that we are taking, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the intricacies of this order. However, the very passing of the order under Section 7 (3) of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act by the Jammu Municipal Corporation would show that the Corporation is taking action in accordance with law so far as the construction of respondent No. 5 is concerned. 16. The appellant assailed the orders dated 18th November, 2013 and 25th November, 2013 by a common writ petition OWP No. 355/2014. 17. 16. The appellant assailed the orders dated 18th November, 2013 and 25th November, 2013 by a common writ petition OWP No. 355/2014. 17. The learned Single Judge after detailed consideration of the OWP No. 355/2014 rejected the same by the impugned order dated 27th July, 2017 agreeing with the findings returned by the J&K Special Tribunal, noting that the ownership claimed by the appellant was of civil nature and that the appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party for the purposes of adjudication of the appeal before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu against the order of demolition which was issued by the Jammu Municipal Corporation. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellant had failed to show that he would suffer any serious legal injury in case he was not heard. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has violated the permission for construction granted to him by the Jammu Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a document placed on record along with writ petition purporting to be the building permission dated 23rd December, 2010 granted to respondent No. 5, wherein it is stated that the Jammu Municipal Corporation has required a setback of 80 feet to be maintained on the front side of the building to be constructed by the respondent No. 5. 19. On this aspect, Mr. Rajneesh Oswal, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has contended that the document relied upon by the appellant is a fabricated document. Our attention is drawn to the copy of the building permission dated 23rd December, 2010 filed by the respondent No. 5 stating that respondent No. 5 is required to maintain a setback of Front- 60’-0”, Sides-Nil and Rear-5’-0”. 20. It is the further submission of respondent No. 5 that appellant is relying on the tampered document and that on a complaint made by respondent No. 5, the Crime Branch has registered a case against the appellant. Mr. Rajneesh Oswal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that it is because of registration of this case, the appellant is mala-fide prosecuting the present case. 21. Mr. Rajneesh Oswal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that it is because of registration of this case, the appellant is mala-fide prosecuting the present case. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the following prescription in the Master Plan:- Proposed Rights of Way and Building Lines (B) Proposed Roads “ Name of the Roads Proposed Right of way Building line from the centre of road a) Upto Janipur Housing Colony junction 30 Meters 20 Meters b) From Janipur Housing Colony to outer ring road 45 Meters 25 Meters” This unfortunately is of no consequence inasmuch as the prescription made in respect of “Proposed Rights of Way and Building Lines Existing Roads”. 22. As against this, Mr. Oswal, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has placed the Master Plan extract, Annexure-V, wherein the Authorities have considered “Proposed Rights of Way and Building Lines Existing Roads”. The following has been mentioned thus: Proposed Rights of Way and Building Lines (A) Existing Roads “Name of the Roads Existing of Way Proposed Right of way Building line from the centre of road 35. Ambgrota road from B.C Road inter-section to outer ring road 29’-0”/ 8.8M 100’-0”/ 30.5M 60’-0”/ 18.3M 23. In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to disagree with the findings of either the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu in its order dated 18th November, 2013 and 25th November, 2013 or the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27th July, 2017. The appellant is neither a necessary nor a proper party for complete adjudication of the subject matter of the appellant’s appeal. 24. In this regard we may place reliance on judgment titled Iyashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad; (2012) 4 SCC 407 , wherein it has been observed that in the absence of any injury to the legal right or legally protected interest, the complainant cannot claim status of a party to adversarial litigation. 25. We find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.