Srinagar: The High Court has sought the details of all buildings and unauthorised structures existing in north Kashmir’s Gulmarg and Tangmarg tourist spots.
Dismayed at the details provided by the authorities earlier, a division bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the preservation of Gulmarg environs directed these authorities to furnish the information afresh.
The court observed that the affidavits filed on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer, Gulmarg Development Authority and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir do not conform to the requirement of its order dated 19 May 2021.
“None of the respondents have filed any affidavit indicating the number of existing buildings with the details, the details of all unauthorised buildings or structures and the legal action, if any, taken against the owners of those buildings,” the court said.
Disapproving of the compliance filed by these authorities, the court issued a “strict direction” to each of the officers to come out clearly on the aspects it had pointed out in the earlier order within a period of one month.
In the meantime, the court said, it was open for the authorities to proceed against all unauthorised occupants or the owners of the buildings in accordance with the law.
In its order of 9 May 2021, the court had sought affidavits from Chief Executive Officer Gulmarg Development Authority (GDA), Chairman BOCA of GDA, Director Tourism Kashmir, Chief Conservator Forests Kashmir and Divisional Commissioner Kashmir.
In the affidavits, these authorities were to clearly indicate the details of all existing buildings, structures which are unauthorised, the legal action if any taken against them.
Meanwhile, the court while disposing of a contempt plea asked the BOCA of GDA to consider and decide the application by the Army seeking permission for carrying building material for repairs of the High Altitude Warfare School (HAWS) at Gulmarg.
The court asked the BOCA to consider it by passing a speaking order in the light of the earlier permission saying it should be considered on its own merits in accordance with the law, most expeditiously, preferably within a month.