Uttarakhand High Court
Shadma Siddiqui And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 November, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 3210 of 2025 (M/S)
Shadma Siddiqui and Another ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the sealing order
dated 21.08.2023, passed under Section 28-A (1) of the Uttarakhand
Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 ("the Act"),
as well as the sealing memo of the same date.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are owner in
possession of plot Khasra No.322/1 area 2100.68 sq. Feet situated in
village Ujjain, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand ("the property"). Their property has been sealed and
notices have been issued to some other person namely Javed Siddiqui.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
property of the petitioners has been illegally sealed by the respondent
no.2/Joint Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar ("the Authority"). The petitioners were
never served with any notice. Notice was issued to one Javed Siddiqui.
He also submits that the respondents have also launched a scheme for
compounding of such constructions, but the petitioners are not being
given benefit of it.
5. Learned counsel for the authority submits that the
available remedy against the sealing order is under Section 28-A(4) of
the Act. He also submits that if there is a compounding scheme, the
petitioners are still at liberty to apply under the scheme for
compounding of the construction raised by them.
6. Section 28-A of the Act gives power to seal unauthorised
development, and once order for sealing is passed under sub-Section 1
to Section 28-A of the Act, the remedy lies under sub-Section 4 to it,
which reads as follows:-
"28-A. Power to seal unauthorised development: -
(1). ....................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
(2) .....................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
(3) .....................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
(4) Any person aggrieved by an order made under Sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) may appeal to the Chairman against that order within
thirty days from the date thereof and the Chairman may after
hearing the parties to the appeal, either allow or dismiss the appeal.
(5) .....................................................................................................
........................................................................................................."
7. The petitioners are, in fact, aggrieved by the order under
Section 28-A (1) of the Act, by which, according to them, their property
has been sealed. Therefore, the petitioners may very well seek the
alternate efficacious remedy under Section 28-A (4) of the Act. For this
reason, the writ petition may not be entertained. Accordingly, the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
24.11.2025
Ravi Bisht
