SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) CM Nos.2760 & 2761 -2012 (For exemption & placing on record A/1 & A/2): Allowed subject to just exceptions. LPA -1038 -2012 & CM -2762 -2012 (For stay): On hearing learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned counsel concedes that insofar as the issue of construction within the 900 meters radius is concerned, till final view is taken in CWP No.18679 of 2010, the appellant really cannot seek any relief. The anxiety of the appellant, at present, appears to be only to seek that whatever has been constructed is not demolished without any further construction being permitted.
(2.) IN respect of the aforesaid, learned senior counsel submits that said interim protection has been granted in CWP No.18679 of 2010. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that what appears to have weighed with the learned single Judge while passing the order for authorities to take action is the alleged conduct of the appellant. One of the aspects in this behalf is arising from the fact that the appellant never disclosed the factum of the land being subject matter of the acquisition, yet the plans being sanctioned and the other is the fact that at best the appellant stepped into the shoes of the original owner(s), as the appellant is only a purchaser on a power of attorney basis with no sale deed being registered in favour of the appellant. In this behalf, learned single Judge has found that the interim orders which were enuring for the benefit of the predecessor -in -interest of the appellant were in CWP No.13086 of 1990 where interim orders had been passed on 31.10.1990 and 11.12.1990. As per those interim orders, dispossession and further proceedings were stayed, but with a caveat that the petitioner therein would not raise any further construction. Thus, the construction raised is alleged to be in violation of these orders.
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel for the appellant seeks to contend before us that these orders have apparently been extracted mistakenly, as there were number of connected matters and insofar as the land which the appellant has purchased is concerned, there is no interdict against raising any further construction but the interim orders are confined to dispossession and further proceedings.;