Uttarakhand High Court
Mayank Gupta And Others ... vs Haridwar Roorkee Development on 5 July, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1917 of 2023
Mayank Gupta and Others ........Petitioners
Versus
Haridwar Roorkee Development
Authority and Another .....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. A.M. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. S.S.
Chauhan, Advocate for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:-
"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 01.07.2023 issued by the respondent no.2 (contained as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition).
(ii) A suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(iii) award the cost of the writ petition to the Petitioners."
2
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased a piece of land from one Subhash Singh through two sale deeds dated 04.03.2021 and 20.04.2021. On 10.11.2022, a notice under Section 27(1) of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 ("the Act"), was issued by the respondent no.2 to the petitioners, requiring them to reply uptil 14.11.2022, with regard to the construction that was raised on the land. Thereafter, on 14.11.2022, another notice under Section 28(1) of the Act was issued to the petitioners by the respondent no.2, requiring them to show-cause as to why the construction be not sealed. The petitioners requested 10 days time for producing a map for compounding, which, in fact, they submitted online also, but the online application of the petitioners was rejected on 26.02.2023 on the ground that the objections on the online application could not be removed by the petitioners. Thereafter, on 01.07.2023, the impugned order has been issued by the respondent no.2 under Section 28-A(1) of the Act, for sealing the construction on the land. It is impugned. 3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were given a notice on 14.11.2022, which was replied by the petitioners on 22.11.2022, with the request that within 10 days, they would submit a map for compounding. They, in fact, it is argued, did submit online application along with a map for compounding, but, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the online application has been rejected on the ground that the objection could not be rectified. He would submit that the respondents never communicated the petitioners about any objections in the application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order could be challenged under Section 28-A (4) of the Act in appeal within 30 days from the date of the impugned order, but, prior to it, directions have been issued that the premises may be sealed on 05.07.2023. It is argued that, thereby, statutory time, which is allotted to the petitioners to prefer an appeal has impliedly been curtailed.
6. The Court, at the very outset, wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the construction, that is being raised by them is as per law 4 and as per the map sanctioned by the respondent no.2? The answer is in negative. In fact, at the very outset, this Court reluctantly would like to note that this writ petition is misconceived for the following reasons:-
(i) The petitioners have no sanctioned map.
(ii) The petitioners were given notice under Section 21-A(1) of the Act on 14.11.2022, which is annexure no.4 to the writ petition, requiring him to show cause as to why the construction be not sealed or demolished under the provisions of the Act.
(iii) The petitioners replied to the notice on 22.11.2022 requiring 10 days time to file map for compounding. They also submitted online map. It was rejected on 26.02.2023. Reference has been made to Annexure No.7 to the writ petition.
7. Despite all the above, action was not taken by the respondent no.2. The order was issued on 01.07.2023. In fact, the respondent-Department had permitted the petitioners to raise the construction for the 5 last 7 months, approximately. Why? What were the reasons? What were the motive?
8. The petitioners have an alternate remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 28-A(4) of the Act. In fact, while the Court was dictating this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to prefer an appeal, under Section 28-A(4) of the Act.
9. The petitioners have definitely an alternate remedy. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
10. The petition is dismissed in limine.
11. Since the Court has not asked the respondents to reply, the Court refrains to make any further comment on the working of the respondent-Department. But, definitely, the Court would request the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, to set up an enquiry in the matter to see as to who was dealing with this case and why there was so much delay. He may, after the enquiry, afford an opportunity to the erring officers and take such actions, as is permissible under law. 6
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, State of Uttarakhand.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.07.2023 Ravi Bisht