JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner, is seeking quashment of impugned order dated 30th of December, 2013, passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar/respondent No.1, in statutory appeal bearing file No. STS/3424/2012, titled ‘Abdul Salam Magray v. Chairman, BOCA & Ors.’. A writ of mandamus has also been sought by the petitioner commanding the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to dismantle the three number of plinths of the respondent No.7 raised by him illegally and unauthorizedly with a further prayer that the private respondents be directed not to raise any construction on spot and official respondent Nos. 2 to 6 be directed not to accord any sanction in favour of the private respondents illegally or in violation of the Master Plan/Building Bye Laws governing the field. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition, briefly and as stated by the petitioner in his petition, are that the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of a two-storeyed residential house with an attic and the land beneath and appurtenant thereto, situated at Noorbagh, Srinagar, which is enclosed with a compound walling. It is stated that towards the southern side of the aforesaid property of the petitioner exists a vacant land of private respondent No.7 and the said respondent along with his sons, i.e. respondent Nos. 8 to 13 started construction of three plinths without obtaining any building permission from the Competent Authority and on the boundary wall of the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the said proposed construction of the respondent Nos. 7 to 13, the petitioner approached the official respondents, i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 6, and requested them not to allow the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 to carry on with this illegal and unauthorized construction, as the same infringes the legal and easementry rights of the petitioner, but the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 did not stop the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 from raising the illegal construction, as a consequence of which, the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 raised the said plinths utilizing the boundary wall of the petitioner as well and without leaving any fire gap towards the aforesaid property of the petitioner. Since no action was taken by the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 from raising the illegal construction, as a consequence of which, the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 raised the said plinths utilizing the boundary wall of the petitioner as well and without leaving any fire gap towards the aforesaid property of the petitioner. Since no action was taken by the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 against the private respondents, as such, the petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit against the respondent in the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Municipal Magistrate, Srinagar, which is pending disposal. It has been submitted that the learned Civil Court passed an interim order dated 2nd of November, 2011, whereby the private respondents were restrained from raising any kind of illegal/unauthorized construction on spot, which order is still in force and operation. Thereafter, during the pendency of the aforesaid civil suit, the respondent No.4 issued an order of demolition against the respondent No.7 vide order No. SMC/Enf/41-44, dated 6th of April, 2012. This order was challenged by the respondent No.7 through the medium of a statutory appeal before the respondent No.1 on 12th of April, 2012. It is submitted that the official respondents, through their counsel, filed objections/written arguments in opposition to the aforesaid statutory appeal of the respondent No.7, wherein, while seeking dismissal of the appeal, they have clearly submitted that the respondent No.7 has, illegally and unauthorizedly, constructed three numbers of plinths without any permission from the Competent Authority. The petitioner also filed a motion for his impleadment in the said statutory appeal which was dismissed by the respondent No.1 on the ground that the intervener has no right to intervene in the statutory appeal and has his remedy available in a civil Court. Finally, the respondent No.1 disposed of the statutory appeal vide its order dated 30th of December, 2013. 3. In their Reply Affidavit, filed in opposition of the writ petition, the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have stated that the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 have constructed three number of plinths unauthorizedly without seeking any building permission from the Competent authority and that, despite repeated warnings to the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 not to go ahead with the illegal and unauthorized construction by the field staff of the respondent Nos. 7 to 13, same did not bear any fruit, which compelled the respondents to issue notices against the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 not to go ahead with the illegal and unauthorized construction by the field staff of the respondent Nos. 7 to 13, same did not bear any fruit, which compelled the respondents to issue notices against the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 under the Control of Building Operations Act, 1988. Consequently, the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 have issued a demolition order under Section 7(3) of the Control of Building Operations Act against the respondent Nos. 7 to l3. Aggrieved by the said order of demolition, the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 filed a statutory appeal before the respondent No.1, wherein the respondents, through their counsel, filed detailed objections in opposition to the said appeal. 4. The respondent Nos. 7 to 13 have also filed their objections, wherein they have pleaded that the petition filed by the petitioner is merely an attempt on the part of the petitioner to achieve what is not permissible in law. The petitioner wants to terrorize the poor and helpless respondents by resorting to unnecessary litigation, one after the another, against them, knowing fully well that the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 are owners of the land measuring 16 marlas and 90 sfts. situated at Noorbagh, Srinagar, falling under Khasra No.22 min. The respondent No. 7 intends to raise construction of his house upon the existing plinths and, in this regard, he applied before the official respondents for grant of permission, which case was received by the official respondents on 13th of January, 2012. The respondent Nos.7 to 13 have completed all the formalities for the grant of permission and his building permission case was processed. He has constructed three plinths some decades ago in his land and has been granted permission by the Building Operations Controlling Authorities. It has been further stated the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition against the respondents in view of action of ‘Samaj Sudhar Committee’, Noorbagh, Baghwanpora on 11th of November, 2011. The respondent Nos. 7 to 13 have also stated that since the petitioner having already accepted the decision of the Tribunal/respondent No.1 herein, whereby the application of the petitioner for arraying him as party to the appeal filed by the respondent No. 7 against the notice of official Respondent No.1, was rejected. The respondent Nos. 7 to 13 have also stated that since the petitioner having already accepted the decision of the Tribunal/respondent No.1 herein, whereby the application of the petitioner for arraying him as party to the appeal filed by the respondent No. 7 against the notice of official Respondent No.1, was rejected. The Tribunal has been pleased to set aside the orders which were impugned in that appeal by respondent No.7 (appellant therein) and the case of respondent Nos. 7 to 13 was accepted. In the end, it has been prayed that the petition of the petitioner may be dismissed with costs. 5. In his Rejoinder Affidavit, filed in opposition to the objections filed by the respondent Nos. 7 to 13, the petitioner, while denying the averments made in the objections, has proceeded to state that the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 have raised three number of plinths for the purposes of raising three number of commercial structures without seeking any permission from the Competent Authority. However, the respondent-Srinagar Municipal Corporation has agreed to consider the building permission case of the respondent Nos. 7 to 13, after the illegally and unauthorizedly raised plinths are dismantled first. This vital fact, it has been stated, has been wilfully suppressed by the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 in their objections just to mislead this Court. It is further submitted that the Special Tribunal, before passing the impugned order, has not taken note of this fact which virtually amounts to regularising the said illegally and unauthorizedly raised plinths. It is also vehemently denied by the petitioner that the plinths in question have been raised by the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 long back as the same has been wrongly submitted in their objections. According to the petitioner, these plinths have been recently raised by the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 in the year 2012, pursuant to which order of demolition dated 6th of April, 2012, was passed by the official respondents which was challenged by the respondent- Ab. Salam Magray in the statutory appeal before the Special Tribunal and, unfortunately, as stated, the Tribunal has not given any finding on the said order as to whether or not such an order is valid in law, but, on the contrary, has allowed the statutory appeal vide impugned order which is not permissible under law. 6. Mr. Salam Magray in the statutory appeal before the Special Tribunal and, unfortunately, as stated, the Tribunal has not given any finding on the said order as to whether or not such an order is valid in law, but, on the contrary, has allowed the statutory appeal vide impugned order which is not permissible under law. 6. Mr. B. A. Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the respondent No.7 has raised three number of plinths without obtaining any permission from the Competent Authority, i.e. the Building Operations Controlling Authority and the official respondents, in their objections filed before respondent No.1 in the statutory appeal filed by the respondent No.7, have taken a specific plea that the respondent No.7 has constructed three number of plinths, without any permission from the Competent Authority. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.7 has also failed to show any building permission in respect of the said plinths in question either before the Civil Court or before the respondent No.1 in the statutory appeal, as such, it was abundantly established that the plinths raised by the respondent No.7 were illegal and unauthorized. The respondent No.1 was bound to return a finding on the legality or illegality of the construction of the plinths, however, without commenting upon the same, the respondent No.1 has allowed the appeal and set aside the demolition notice. 7. Mr. Moomin Khan, the learned counsel for the official respondents, i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 6, submits that the construction in question has been raised by the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 without seeking any permission from the Competent Authority and, therefore, the same is unauthorized and illegal. The respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction or authority to compound the said illegal and unauthorized construction. The learned counsel further states that, even though, the Competent Authority, i.e. the Building Operations Controlling Authority, has already approved the building permission case of the respondent No.7, but same was subject to the rider that he will dismantle the existing plinths, which were unauthorized and illegal. This aspect, it has been stated, was brought to the notice of the respondent No.1, but the respondent No.1, without proper application of mind, allowed the appeal of the respondent Nos. 7 to 13. 8. Mr. N. A. Beigh, the learned counsel for the private respondents, i.e. the respondent Nos. This aspect, it has been stated, was brought to the notice of the respondent No.1, but the respondent No.1, without proper application of mind, allowed the appeal of the respondent Nos. 7 to 13. 8. Mr. N. A. Beigh, the learned counsel for the private respondents, i.e. the respondent Nos. 7 to 13, submits that the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 are owners of the land measuring 16 Marlas and 90 Sfts., situated at Noorbagh, Srinagar, falling under Khasra No.22 min and the respondent No. 7 intends to raise construction of his house upon existing plinths and, in this regard, he applied before the official respondents for grant of permission, which case was received by the official respondents on 13th of January, 2012. The respondent Nos.7 to 13 have completed all the formalities for the grant of permission and his building permission case was processed. He has constructed three plinths some decades ago in his land and has been granted permission by the Building Operations Controlling Authorities. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition against the respondents in view of action of ‘Samaj Sudhar Committee’, Noorbagh, Baghwanpora on 11th of November, 2011. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 10. What comes to the fore from the perusal of the record as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties is that the official respondents, i.e. the Srinagar Municipal Corporation have categorically stated before this Court as also before the respondent No.1 that the plinths in question have been raised by the private respondents illegally and without any permission of the Competent Authority. It is also discernible from the records that, even though, the Competent Authority did approve the permission for raising the construction, but same was kept subject to the rider that the existing plinths shall be dismantled in the first instance. It is not understandable as to how the respondent No.1 could assume the jurisdiction of the competent Authority, i.e. the Building Operations Controlling Authority, by setting aside the order of demolition in respect of illegally and unauthorizedly raised plinths. The respondent No.1 has virtually legalized the illegal acts of the respondent No.7 of raising the illegal construction. 11. It is not understandable as to how the respondent No.1 could assume the jurisdiction of the competent Authority, i.e. the Building Operations Controlling Authority, by setting aside the order of demolition in respect of illegally and unauthorizedly raised plinths. The respondent No.1 has virtually legalized the illegal acts of the respondent No.7 of raising the illegal construction. 11. True it is that the building permission case of the private respondents stands approved by the Competent Authority subject to dismantling of the existing plinths, but since the private respondents failed to act upon the said condition, therefore, the permission so granted in their favour has become redundant and, as such, rightly, notices under Section 7 stand issued against the private respondents for raising construction of three number of plinths without approval of the competent Authority. The respondent No.1, without appreciating this important aspect of the matter, has, in terms of the impugned order, legalized the illegal construction raised by the private respondents. 12. It needs must be said that the Building Operations Controlling Authority is the competent Authority to grant or refuse any building permission. It is the said authority who is presumed to have the knowledge as to whether or not any construction is permissible under rules governing the field. The Building controlling Authority is the custodian of the civic and easementry rights of the citizens and is supposed to act as a representative of the community interest. 13. In the case on hand, the Building Operations Controlling Authority approved the proposed building permission in question, but subject to the condition that the plinths, raised illegally and in violation of Master Plan, should be, in the first instance, dismantled. By passing the impugned order, the respondent No.1 has, in fact, usurped the powers and jurisdiction of the competent Authority, i.e. the Building Operations Controlling Authority. 14. For all that has been said and done above, the petition of the petitioner is allowed, as a consequence of which, the impugned order dated 30th of December, 2013, passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Srinagar/respondent No.1, in statutory appeal bearing file No. STS/3424/2012, titled ‘Abdul Salam Magray v. Chairman, BOCA & Ors.’ is quashed. The official respondents, i.e. respondent Nos. The official respondents, i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 6, are directed to dismantle the illegally and unauthorizedly raised plinths of the respondent No.7 forthwith with a further direction that they shall not accord any sanction in favour of the private respondents, i.e. respondent Nos. 7 to 13, illegally or in violation of the Master Plan/Building Bye Laws governing the field. 15. Writ petition, alongwith connected MP(s), disposed of as above. 16. Registry to send down the record(s) alongwith a copy of this order.