SPA/288/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2216 UK

                    Office Notes,
                   reports, orders
                   or proceedings
SL.
         Date       or directions                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   and Registrar's
                      order with
                     Signatures
      11.08.2023                     SPA No. 288 of 2023
                                     Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
                                     Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The present Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 36 of 2020, and the order dated 20.07.2023, passed in Review Application No. 1953 of 2023, whereby the said Review Application was dismissed.

4. The appellant had preferred the said Writ Petition to assail the communication issued by the Joint Secretary, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) to the SSP, Dehradun on 20.12.2019, requesting for police force to carry out demolition of unauthorized construction raised by the petitioner.

5. The learned Single Judge examined the counter affidavit of the respondent-MDDA, which disclosed that the appellant was issued a notice on 01.07.2015 to show cause, as to why construction raised by him, without necessary permission, be not demolished. His reply was considered. His stand that the construction was raised before 1984 was not substantiated.

6. The appellant was again issued a show cause notice on 23.01.2016 and, ultimately, on 27.05.2016 an order of demolition was passed in relation to the unauthorized construction raised by the appellant. His Statutory Appeal against the demolition order was dismissed on 18.03.2019. In the Revision preferred by the appellant, against the said order dated 18.03.2019, the MDDA was directed to again make spot inspection, to ascertain whether the said construction amounts to renovation, as according to the appellant, he has merely repaired the tin roof.

7. MDDA carried out the spot inspection through its Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer. In their Inspection Report, they reported that, in the eastern side of the main building, one room measuring 15ft. 8 inch X 10ft 08 inch has been constructed with bricks and RCC slabs, which construction does not fall within the ambit of repairs. Thus, the order of the Revisional Authority was also complied with, before seeking police aid to carry out the demolition exercise.

8. Counsel for the appellant has again sought to argue before us that no illegal and unauthorised construction has been raised by the appellant, and that he has merely carried out repairs.

9. In writ proceedings, it is not for this Court to determine the said issue. The appellant has had full opportunity to establish that he had not carried out illegal, or unauthorised construction, and the said aspect has been examined at three levels, and rejected.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the present Special Appeal. There is no merit in the Special Appeal qua the order in review as well.

11. The present Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

12. Since we have examined the appeal on merits, we are not inclined to go into the aspect of delay.

13. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly.

      (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)      (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
          11.08.2023                 11.08.2023
Rahul