[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2965/2024 on 19 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
p
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.2965 of 2024
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Devendra Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.
Vivek Pathak, Advocate for respondent no.2.
4. Heard on Recall Application (MCC No.2 of 2025)
moved on behalf of respondent no.5 seeking recall of the
order dated 11.11.2024 passed by this Court in WPMS
No.2965 of 2024. By the said order, the Court recorded
the submission made by learned counsel for respondent
no.2 that the proceedings for demolition of non
compoundable portion raised by respondent no.5 would be
brought to a logical end within eight weeks.
5. In the recall application, the ground has been stated
that it was the MDDA itself which has sanctioned the
Development Area. However, the Assistant Engineer of
the Development Authority has directed to stop the
construction which was duly sanctioned by the authority.
6. It is also stated that all the action was initiated at
the behest of petitioner who had already filed two more
frivolous complaints on 21.12.2013 and 2.1.2024. The
answering respondent was not given any opportunity of
hearing. It is stated that the respondent no.5 also filed
the complaint before the Uttarakhand Human Rights
Commission where on the reply was called. The petitioner
sought benefit of settlement scheme of compounding in
accordance with law. Accordingly, the revised map was
sanctioned by the Development Authority of the
respondent no.5. In sum and substance, it has been
prayed that the order dated 11.11.2024 may be recalled.
7. The objection has been filed by the petitioner no.1 in
which it is stated that the order was passed on the
undertaking of respondent no.5 in which it was stated that
the process for demolition of unauthorized non
compoundable construction could be initiated. There is no
ground for recalling the judgment and order dated
11.11.2024.
8. The respondent no.2 has also filed his objection to
the application in which it is stated that the respondent
no.5 did not raise the construction in accordance with
sanctioned plan and accordingly, the action was taken by
respondent no.2 in accordance with the provisions of
Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and
Development Act, 1973. The answering respondent has
to demolish non compoundable portion in compliance of
order passed by this Court pursuant to which notice has
been issued to the respondent no.5 by respondent no.2.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
it appears that the order under recall has been passed on
the basis of undertaking given by respondent no.2-MDDA
regarding demolition of non compoundable portion raised
by respondent no.5. No person can be permitted to raise
the construction in unauthorized manner. If the
respondent no.5 is carrying out or carried out the
construction in accordance with sanctioned plan, definitely
it would be saved in accordance with law and if any
unauthorized construction which is non-compoundable is
raised then it shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
All stated, there is hardly any ground of interference, the
Recall Application (MCC No.2 of 2025) fails and the same
is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
19.12.2025
Ravi
