Uttarakhand High Court
Senior Citizen Welfare Association ... vs Delhi Apartments (Pvt.) Ltd. And Others on 18 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.2332 of 2025 (M/S)
Senior Citizen Welfare Association (Regd.) ..........Petitioner
Vs.
Delhi Apartments (Pvt.) Ltd. and others ............. Respondents
Present : Mr. Sahil Mullick, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for respondent no.5.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
A litigation is pending before Real Estate Regulatory
Authority, Dehradun ("the RERA") in terms of Complaint No.7 of
2025 ("the complaint") with regard to some issues pertaining to
Deep Ganga Apartments Haridwar. By means of the instant
petition, the petitioner seeks directions that till the complaint is
decided by the RERA, the respondents may be directed to maintain
status quo qua plot no.5, measuring 8094 Square Meters, situated
at Village Salempur Mahdood, Sector 5A, SIDCUL, Haridwar. The
petitioner also seeks directions that the RERA may be directed to
decide the interim relief application filed by the petitioner by the
next date of hearing.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Deep Ganga Apartments have been constructed by the respondent
no.1/Delhi Apartments (Pvt.) Ltd.; the petitioner is Senior Citizens
Welfare Association (Regd.), who are residing in the apartments,
but now, the respondent no.1 is trying to raise constructions on a
piece of land, which is otherwise used as Children Park. He
submits that the complaint has been filed before the RERA, in
which, interim relief application is not being decided; the dates are
being fixed. He also admits that the respondent no.1 has also filed
Original Suit No.199 of 2025, M/S Delhi Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Sehdev Sharma and others, in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.),
Haridwar, which is still pending, in which interim relief application
is pending. Therefore, indulgence of this Court is required in this
matter.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that
along with Annexure No.2, the petitioner has filed a sanctioned
plan map of Deep Ganga Apartments; there are four towers, which
have already been made on a certain piece of land; the parks, as
shown in the sanctioned map, are in its existence. He submits that
in the center of these houses, an approved mall is to be constructed
on plot no.5. But, when the respondent no.1 tried to raise
construction for their mall, it was objected to by the residents of
Deep Ganga Apartments on the ground that commercial
construction should not be made. Thereafter, it was converted into
a residential complex, but still it was objected to by the residents of
Deep Ganga Apartments that if a high tower is raised, it may
obstruct air, sunlight, etc. Therefore, it is argued that the entire
plan has been changed and instead of raising residential complex,
the respondent no.1 has decided to sell the land for raising
construction of Villas, may be up to two floor only. But still, it is
argued that it is objected by the residents of Deep Ganga
Apartments. He would submit that the matter is pending before the
RERA and the respondent no.1 has also filed a civil suit seeking
injunction against the petitioner as the petitioner's Association are
intervening and obstructing the respondent no.1 in developing that
area.
5. The petitioner's complaint is pending before the RERA.
The last date fixed in the RERA was 15.07.2025, when next date is
fixed for 22.08.2025. It is the claim of the petitioner that he has
also sought interim relief in terms of restraining the respondent
no.1 to raise further construction on that land.
6. In so far as, indulgence of this Court is concerned, even
it appears that the petitioner has not placed before the Court the
entire material because what is being argued is that in an approved
plan, a Children Park is approved, but it is being changed by
raising construction on it by the respondent no.1. But, no such
sanctioned plan has been placed by the petitioner, in which any
Children Park is shown, on which, it is alleged that the
construction is being made. Annexure No.2, which is filed by the
petitioner is a plan. It has multiple parks. It has not been indicated,
as to on which portion of this plan, such park is approved on which
now construction is raised by the respondent no.1. Merely by
saying, this Court may not make indulgence in such matters, when
the issue is pending consideration before the RERA.
7. Moreover, it is admitted that the respondent no.1 has
filed a civil suit. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the civil suit is not maintainable. As stated, the respondent
no.1 has filed an application before the RERA with regard to
jurisdiction, which means, the petitioner is challenging the
jurisdiction of the civil court for entertaining the civil suit filed by
someone and respondent no.1 is challenging the jurisdiction of the
RERA for the complaint which has been filed by the petitioner
before the RERA. It is also admitted that in the civil suit the
respondent no.1 has sought directions for restraining the petitioner
for interfering into the peaceful possession. Definitely, if any
interim relief application is pending in that civil suit, parties may
have their say on that issue and it will find disposal accordingly.
Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any
intervention in this writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves
to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
8. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
18.08.2025
Sanjay
SANJAY
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bb
d504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe,
KANOJIA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255
DD8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DE
AE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA
Date: 2025.08.19 15:23:13 +05'30'
