Kashmir Court Protects Flood-Affected Family Home From Demolition, Sets 60-Day Deadline To SMC For Regularisation
The court restrains Srinagar Municipal Corporation from demolishing flood-damaged family home, citing administrative inaction.
By ETV Bharat Jammu & Kashmir Team
Published : March 20, 2026 at 12:58 PM IST
Srinagar: A local court has restrained the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) from demolishing a residential house built by a joint family in Jawahar Nagar area of the city. The court ruled that the authorities cannot act after remaining silent on repeated representations for years.
First Civil Subordinate Judge and Municipal Magistrate Srinagar Fidah Hussain Nayek, in his 18-page judgment, restrained SMC from causing any sort of interference in the construction raised by plaintiffs - Ghulam Nabi Dar and his nephew Mohammad Ayoub Dar, both residents of Ikhrajpora, Jawahar Nagar.
The plaintiffs had approached the court in 2017 seeking protection against the demolition of their house and interference in their possession. They named the Commissioner of SMC, its Chief Enforcement Officer, and the concerned Ward Officer as respondents.
The case traces back to the devastating 2014 floods, which left the family home damaged and uninhabitable. The court noted that the plaintiffs had obtained official permission in 2015 to reconstruct a two-storey house with an attic.
However, due to their large joint family, they later sought permission to construct an additional floor. When no response came from the authorities, they assumed their request had been accepted and went ahead with the construction.
They also submitted a separate application seeking regularisation of the additional construction, but before any decision was taken, SMC officials allegedly threatened demolition, prompting the legal challenge.
A key turning point in the case was the failure of the SMC authorities to file a written statement despite repeated opportunities. The court closed its right to respond in 2018.
The judge recorded that “there is nothing on record placed by the defendants in opposition to the case of the plaintiff.”
Although the defence cross-examined witnesses, the court found that “nothing could be extracted from them which would be fatal to the case of the plaintiff.”
Relying on oral and documentary evidence, the court held that the plaintiffs had initially constructed the house strictly as per permission. It further observed that the additional floor was raised after submitting representations and in the absence of any objection from the authorities.
The judge noted that the construction was carried out “within the knowledge of the defendants and with their active assistance.”
Importantly, the court also pointed to administrative inaction, stating that the deviation “has been raised by the plaintiffs not only due to the fault of defendants but also because of the inaction on their part.”
Allowing the suit, the court passed a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
It ordered that the defendants are “restrained from causing any sort of interference in the construction raised by the plaintiffs.”
At the same time, the court directed the SMC to take a final decision on the regularisation of the additional construction within 60 days.
The judge said authorities must decide the matter “under the Rules within a period of 60 days in light of the observations made herein above,” while ensuring the structure does not violate the Master Plan.
The court also directed the plaintiffs to submit all necessary documents, including the site map, to enable the authorities to take a final call.
Also Read
