Uttarakhand High Court
Tapendra Singh Rana vs Mussoorie Dehradun Development on 6 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 104 of 2022
Tapendra Singh Rana. ..................Appellant.
-Versus-
Mussoorie Dehradun Development
Authority and others. ..........Respondents.
Present:
Shri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Consul, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 3.
Shri S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Shri Siddharath Sah, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4.
Date of Hearing and Order : 06.06.2022
Coram:-
Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.
Sri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.
Upon hearing the learned counsel, the Court made the following Order:-
(Per, S.K.Mishra, ACJ)
1. In this intra court appeal, the applicant before the learned
Single Judge had filed an application for his impleadment in the
Writ Petition (MS) No. 1444 of 2020. It was contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge
that on the basis of his complaint, an action of demolition and of
passing of the order under 27 (1) read with Section 28 (1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was
taken against the petitioner. Hence, it was further argued by him
that in the capacity of being a complainant, he would be a
necessary party to be heard in that matter for the purpose of
effective adjudication.
2. The learned Single Judge took into consideration the fact
that the Act meant only for the purposes of regulating the
development process in the urban areas by the Authorities within
the norms and bye-laws, as framed by the Development
Authority and if there is any violation of it, it is rather the
Development Authority, who has got absolute right to take action
and which has been actually taken in the instant case. The learned
Single Judge further took note of the fact that different
Authorities viz. Original, Appellate and Revisional Authorities
had concurrently decided the issue against the petitioner, which
is under challenge in the writ petition before him. The learned
Single Judge while adjudicating the issue emanating from the
impugned orders, which are under challenge before him, was of
the view that complainant at the behest of whom the proceedings
have been taken place is not a necessary party to be impleaded in
the writ petition because participation in the proceedings may
not be relevant because in his absence, the decision to be given to
the orders under challenge could still be judicially scrutinized by
the Court.
3. It is apparent from the record that present appellant was
not a party either before the Original Authority or Appellate
Authority or Revisional Authority and for the first time, he came
and filed the application for impleadment in the writ petition
which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. It is also
apparent from the record that Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (as applicable to the High
Court of Uttarakhand) provides for Special Appeal, which reads
as under:
"Special appeal.- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a
judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made
by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court and
not being an order made in the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of
Superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction
or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or
Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award (a) of a tribunal Court or statutory
arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or
purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh
Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List
in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the
Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported
to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate
or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one judge.)
4. That being an order of the Revisional Authority passed
under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973, as mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that as per
Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, this appeal is not
maintainable. We also do not find any merit in the appeal to
allow the impleadment application, as the Development
Authority is competent to look after the issue in question. Hence,
the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.) (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra)
Acting Chief Justice.
SKS
