JAMMU: The much-publicized appeal against the demolition of the allegedly unlawfully built home of the former deputy chief minister at Ban in Nagrota was postponed once more since the Singhs’ lawyer was not there.
The next hearing date for the case’s concluding arguments has now been set for January 24 by a court in Jammu.
In violation of section 7(3) of the Control of Building Operations Act, 1988, senior BJP leader and former deputy chief minister Dr. Nirmal Singh and his wife Mamta Singh raised the construction of a palatial house at village Ban in the Nagrota area of the Jammu district without first obtaining permission from the Jammu Development Authority.
The JDA initially did not act against Singhs and it was only after an RTI application filed by whistle-blower Advocate Muzzaffar Ali Shah, the JDA disclosed that despite being informed about the alleged illegal construction from the Khilafwarzi Wing, it did not proceed against the high profile violators.
Subsequently, on the complaint of Shah, the JDA issued a demolition notice to Singhs directing them to remove the illegal construction on their own within five days failing which the JDA’s Khilafwarzi Wing would remove the violations.
Against the said demolition notice, Mamta Singh had filed a statutory appeal before the J&K Special Tribunal, which while taking cognizance of the appeal, stayed the operation of the demolition notice.
The stay has been extended from time to time and in the meantime, the JDA has filed its response stating that it’s a case of ‘Major Violation’ and appeal merits to be dismissed.
The matter was adjourned on various hearings due to the non-availability of the Bench-II at J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu as the Presiding Judicial Member of the Bench- Justice Rajesh Sekhri had been elevated as the Additional Judge of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh and today the case was adjourned for want of the arguing counsel of the Appellant Mamta Singh.
The matter is being heard by the Bench-II of the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu headed by new incumbent Presiding Officer Rajiv Gupta, Member (J).
In the case, Senior Advocate R. K. Gupta was the arguing counsel, but he was unavailable today, according to Advocate Rahul Sadotra, who was representing the appellant Mamta Singh. In contrast, Advocate Adarsh Sharma represented JDA. The hearing was postponed by the tribunal until January 24, 2023.