Tribunal verifications must strictly adhere to the scope of prior Division Bench directions and underlying statutory notices.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal (Respondent No. 1) in an appeal regarding unauthorized construction.

The Tribunal had directed a team of officials to verify the factual position on-site based on allegations made by a private respondent (Respondent No. 5).

The petitioner contended that the scope of this verification exceeded the mandate previously set by a Division Bench of the High Court in LPA No. 09/2024, which had restricted the inquiry solely to violations mentioned in the original notices issued under Section 7(1) and 7(3) of the Control of Building Operations Act.

1. Whether the J&K Special Tribunal can enlarge the scope of factual verification beyond the specific unauthorized constructions identified in the statutory notice issued under Section 7(1) of the Act.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s order for spot verification must strictly conform to the prior directions/observations issued by the Division Bench in the related Letters Patent Appeal.

The court applied the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988, specifically Section 7(1) (notice of unauthorized construction) and Section 7(3) (order of demolition/action).

It further relied on the doctrine of judicial discipline and the binding nature of appellate orders, noting that a subordinate tribunal cannot overreach or re-open issues already "clinched" or modified by a Division Bench in a related appeal (LPA No. 09/2024).

The Court observed that the Division Bench had previously modified the scope of the case, explicitly stating that the Tribunal should only decide the appeal regarding unauthorized constructions that were the subject matter of the Section 7(1) notice.

The High Court reasoned that any verification based on fresh allegations by Respondent No. 5 regarding a "public lane" (which was not in the original notice) would constitute an impermissible expansion of the proceedings.

The Court emphasized that allowing verification beyond the Division Bench's specific observations would not only be legally improper but potentially "contemptuous" as it would override the superior court's specific mandate.

It held that the spot verification must be confined strictly to the deviations/violations listed in the Section 7(1) and 7(3) notices and must conform to the Division Bench’s judgment in LPA No. 09/2024.

The Tribunal was directed to proceed with the appeal only regarding the original subject matter and not the new allegations leveled by Respondent No. 5.