Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
(iii) Order dated 22.07.2025, passed in Revision No. 18 of
2024, Sanjay Pathak Vs. Secretary, District Level
Development Authority by the respondent no.1/Joint
Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and
Urban Development Authority, Dehradun. By it, the
revision has been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased a plot
situated in Kahalkweera Patti Bhowali, District Nainital from one Lalit
Joshi by way of registered sale deed dated 08.01.2018. The petitioner's
name has been mutated in the revenue record. The petitioner proceeded
to construct a residential complex on the plot. The petitioner was not
clear as to whether the Authority had jurisdiction in the area or not. On
27.10.2020, a notice was issued to one Mr. G.K. Pandey under Sections
27 (1) and 28 (1) of the Act, calling upon him to produce the documents
with regard to cottage and flats. Mr G.K. Pandey, according to the
petitioner, was nowhere related to the petitioner. He was a stranger. Mr.
G.K. Pandey, according to the petitioner, had replied to the notice, but
without considering the reply, the Vice Chairman of the Authority by
the impugned order dated 22.07.2022, passed an order under Section
27 of the Act for the demolition of the property. Thereafter, the
petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on 05.06.2024 and
the revision against it was also dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the owner of the plot. He was not given show cause notice
before the order under Section 27 of the Act was passed for demolition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has always been ready
to seek compounding of the map. His compounding has not been
accepted on the ground that it is not possible to compound the offence.
It is argued that the petitioner is ready to make changes in the building
and submit fresh map for compounding. Learned counsel submits that
the petitioner, in fact, has deposited the compounding fees with the
Authority.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents/Authority submits that the notice under Section 27 of the
Act may be given to the owner or the concerned person, which is
evident from the proviso to Section 27 of the Act. He further submits
that the petitioner has alongwith some other persons raised multiple
flats on a portion of land without approved sanctioned plan. The map
which was given for compounding is not compoundable because map
for entire building has not been submitted. He submits that the
construction was raised in defiance to the provisions of the Act. Hence,
the lawful orders have been passed.
6. Till date, at no point of time did the petitioner ever raised a
plea that he was not served with a notice before order of demolition was
passed by Vice Chairman of the Authority on 22.07.2024. In this
petition the petitioner writes that a notice was issued to one G.K.
Pandey, who is a stranger. In para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner
again writes that G.K. Pandey had replied, but it was not considered by
the Vice Chairman of the Authority. The question is that if G.K. Pandey
was a stranger, how come the petitioner know that the notice was
issued to G.K. Pandey and he had replied to it. If G.K. Pandey was some
stranger, why should he reply to any notice, which was not concerned
to him. These things have not been clarified by the petitioner himself.
As stated, the petitioner has never objected or raised an issue that he
was not served with a notice.
7. The first proviso to Section 27 of the Act reads as follows:-
"Provided that no such order shall be made unless the
owner or the person concerned has been given a reasonable
opportunity to show cause why the order should not be made."
8. The above provision abundantly makes it clear that notice
under Section 27 of the Act is not to be given to the owner alone. It may
be given to the person concerned. In the instant case, by the pleadings
of the petitioner itself, it is clear that it was given to a person concerned,
who had replied to it. Moreover, as stated, the petitioner has never
raised this issued any time before. Fact remains that after initial notice
of demolition under Section 27 of the Act, the petitioner did challenge
the order in appeal and further in revision. The petitioner had immense
opportunity to defend himself.
9. In the matters of unauthorised construction, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case Kaniz Ahmed Vs. Sabuddin and others,
2025 INSC 610 has observed as follows:-
"5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of
Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we have made
ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction
must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the
rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being
brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt
with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person
guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing
misplaced sympathy................................."
10. And further, the Hon'ble Court observed as follows:-
"7 Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while
dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily
engage themselves in permissions in judicial regularisation of
buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent
authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates
not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the
rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in
order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. The law ought
not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing
the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put
otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to
disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent
effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly
society. [See; Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]"
11. Admittedly, the petitioner did not get any map sanctioned
from the Authority. He raised construction. The construction is
admittedly, unauthorised. It has not been compounded. The plea of
compounding submitted by the petitioner has not been accepted by the
authority on the ground that the proposal as submitted may not be
compounded. The petitioner has got multiple opportunities to defend
himself. He was afforded opportunities of hearing before the impugned
orders were passed. In view of it, this Court is of the view that there is
no merit in the case. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
12. The writ petition is dismissed, in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
08.08.2025
Jitendra
