Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2335/2025 of SHASHI MANCHANDA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 7 August 2025
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D1- 14 WPMS No.2335 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Dheeraj Manchanda, petitioner no.2-in-person. Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D1- 14
WPMS No.2335 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Dheeraj Manchanda, petitioner no.2-in-person. Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of Haridwar. The adjacent land of the petitioners belongs to the respondent no.5, who is raising an illegal construction on his property, which is in deviation to the map that has been sanctioned by the respondent no.2/Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority (“the authority”). The authority inspected the construction that was raised by the respondent no.5, and finally, an order was passed on 16.12.2024, directing the respondent no.5 to stop construction, but according to the petitioner, still the respondent no.5 is raising construction in defiance to the sanctioned map. The petitioners seek directions that the respondent-authorities may be directed to take action as per notices issued by them. Heard. Petitioner no.2-in-person submits that the respondent no.5 is raising constructions in contravention to the map that has been sanctioned by the authority. The authority has inspected the property of the respondent no.5 on 12.12.2024. Thereafter, on 16.12.2024, an order was passed against the respondent no.5 for stopping the construction and notices were also issued for sealing and demolition of the building raised by the respondent no.5, but, thereafter, no action has been taken. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that the notices were issued to the respondent no.5. He had moved an application for compounding. When this statement is given, the petitioner no.2-in-person submits that the respondent no.5 has not complied with front and back setback, and it causes great inconvenience to the neighbourhood. It has been responded by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 that compounding is permissible within certain limits. Huge deviations are not compoundable. He submits that the pursuant to the inspection report dated 12.12.2024 and show cause notice and notice for sealing, etc. as given by the respondent authorities on 16.12.2024, and on other dates, further action be completed within a period of six weeks. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents-authority to proceed in the matter based on the inspection report dated 12.12.2024, and show cause notice dated 16.12.2024, which are part of Annexure No.7 to the writ petition, within a period of six weeks, in accordance with law.
(Ravindra Maithani J.)
07.08.2025 RV