Uttarakhand High Court
Rajkumari Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 18 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7259-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 329 of 2016
Rajkumari Bhatt ... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Another ... Respondents
Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy AG, for the State.
Ms. Ruchika Negi, Advocate, i/b Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the
respondent no. 2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
This intra-Court appeal has been filed by
the writ petitioner against dismissal of her writ
petition vide judgment dated 17.9.2016, rendered by
a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 207
of 2016.
2. It transpires that appellant sought
permission for constructing a residential house and
such permission was granted by Nainital Lake Special
Area Development Authority, vide order dated
24.2.2003. In the letter of permission, it was
mentioned that permission shall remain valid for
three years. According to appellant, before she could
start construction work, the Secretary of the
Development Authority issued a letter on 22.8.2003
asking her not to raise any construction in view of
interim order passed in a writ petition.
2025:UHC:7259-DB
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits
that due to the restraint order passed by this Court,
the validity period indicated in the permission letter
got expired and appellant could not raise any
construction. Learned Counsel further submits that on
appellant's request, validity period of permission was
extended for three years vide order dated 24.9.2010.
He submits that since Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan did
not grant permission for connecting the sewer line to
the appellant and it was one of the conditions
indicated in the earlier permission letter dated
24.2.2003, therefore, appellant could not raise
construction during the extended validity period of
permission. Ultimately, when appellant applied for
extension of validity period of permission, she was
asked to submit original copy of the earlier
sanctioned map. He further submits that appellant
submitted all requisite documents, however the
validity period of permission was not extended and
thereafter appellant was asked to apply under One
Time Settlement Scheme. Appellant deposited certain
amount, as required by the development authority,
however, by the order dated 7.12.2015, permission
was granted only for constructing the ground floor of
the building and permission for construction of first
floor was denied on the ground that as per the new
bye-laws of 2015, such permission cannot be
granted. Challenging the said order dated 7.12.2015,
appellant filed writ petition. The writ petition having
been dismissed by learned Single Judge, appellant
has filed this appeal.
2025:UHC:7259-DB
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits
that the building was proposed to be constructed
strictly as per the bye-laws and the development
authority, in 2003, had also granted permission for
raising construction as proposed, however due to
restraint order passed by this Court, construction
could not be raised earlier. He submits that Secretary
of the Development Authority took a hyper technical
view and completely overlooked the fact that the
building bye-laws, which was enforced in 2015, would
not apply in a case where permission for construction
was granted in 2003 and simply extension of that
permission was sought by the appellant.
5. Without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the contentions raised by learned Counsel
for the appellant, this Court thinks that ends of
justice would be met if the appellant is permitted to
approach the Secretary of the Development Authority
for reconsidering the decision taken by him earlier.
We, therefore, dispose of the special appeal by
permitting the appellant to make a representation to
the Secretary of the Development Authority. If she
makes such representation within two weeks from
today, the Secretary concerned shall revisit the issue
and take decision, strictly as per law and
uninfluenced by the decision taken by him earlier,
within two months thereafter.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
18.8.2025
Pr
PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C9195
7BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.08.19 17:46:34 +05'30'
2025:UHC:7259-DB
