SPA/1080/2017
2025 Latest Caselaw 191 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/1080/2017 on 7 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                                   2025:UHC:3605-DB
                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.            proceedings or
      Date                                             COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.            directions and
              Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  SPA/1080/2017
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Per: (Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Senior Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Pawan Sanwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the respondent.

2. Appellant filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2412 of 2012, challenging order dated 24.09.2012, passed by Chief Secretary, Avas Anubhag, Government of Uttarakhand.

3. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 17.11.2017. Thus, feeling aggrieved, writ petitioner filed this Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in his objection, appellant had contended that since the property in question is being used by appellant for commercial purposes and change of land use in the Master Plan as residential, would adversely affect his interest, therefore, he may be permitted to use the property for commercial purposes and the State Government erred in rejecting the representation on untenable grounds.

5. He further submits that learned Single Judge also went astray in dismissing the writ petition 2025:UHC:3605-DB without considering the relevant issues.

6. We are not impressed by the said submission. Learned Single Judge has given valid reason for dismissing the writ petition. It has been observed that during the period 1998-2001, the land use was shown as "residential" in the water supply bill and in the Master Plan, for the period between 1982-2001 also, land use was residential. Thus, it was not that the land use was being changed for the first time and it was residential since 1982.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the Master Plan 2041, the land use of property in question has again been shown as M-3 which indicates that it is meant for residential as well as commercial purposes.

8. As observed earlier, we find no infirmity. Thus, there is no scope for interference, the writ petition is dismissed.

9. However, appellant shall be entitled to benefit of changed land use, if any. And if he has any grievance, he shall be at liberty to approach the competent authority.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 07.05.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.05.09 10:11:35 +05'30'