WPMS/2605/2019
2022 Latest Caselaw 1062 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No. 2605 of 2019
                                      Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Arti Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner moved an application under Section 7-A of U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 to the prescribed authority alleging that respondent no.4 had wrongly obtained sanction for construction of a house over the land, on which he had no right, title or interest. Reliance was placed on a judgment passed in Original Suit No. 16 of 2013 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Haldwani, whereby sale-deed executed in favour of respondent no.4 was cancelled. The said judgment was affirmed in appeal. Subsequently, Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 was made applicable in the area by creating a Development Authority, then the matter was heard by Joint Secretary, Local Development Authority, Haldwani, Kathgodam, who rejected petitioner's application, on the ground that it is not possible to take any action against respondent no.4, in respect of orders passed under U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958.

Thereafter, petitioner moved another application, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 47 of 2017. Joint Secretary, District Development Authority, rejected the said application also by holding that on the date when house plan was sanctioned, respondent no.4 was recorded as owner/bhumidar of the land in question in revenue records.

Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, which was registered as Appeal No. 6 of 2018-19, which has been partly allowed vide judgment dated 22.04.2019 and the matter has been remitted back to the Joint Secretary, District Development Authority to reconsider petitioner's application dated 20.12.2017.

I have gone through the judgment given by learned Commissioner. By the said judgment, Joint Secretary, District Development Authority, Haldwani has been directed to reconsider petitioner's application in the light of the grounds taken in that application, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that any interference with the judgment passed by Commissioner would be uncalled for. Therefore, this Court declines to interfere with the judgments/orders impugned in this writ petition.

Since the order passed by Commissioner is dated 22.04.2019 and nearly three years have gone by, therefore, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Joint Secretary, District Development Authority, Haldwani to take decision on petitioner's application in terms of judgment of Appellate Authority, as early as possible, but not later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

It goes without saying that all stake-holders including respondent no.4 shall be heard by Joint Secretary, before taking any decision.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 01.04.2022 Navin