Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1928
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
G. Narendar, CJ, Alok Mahra, J
GYAN DAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
W PPI L No.3 6 of 2025 | W PPI L No.5 8 of 2019 | W PPI L No.2 1 9 of 2021 | W PPI L No.1 of 2023 | W PPI L NO.7 5 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhijay Negi, Snighda Tiwari, Devang Dobhal
For the Respondents: C.S. Rawat, Gajendra Tripathi, Ashish Joshi, Yogesh Pacholia
State authorities are mandated to comply with Supreme Court directives on demolition actions, with clear consequences for violations.
Headnote:(A) Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, In Re, 2025 (5) SCC 1 - Compliance of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding demolition actions - The court underlines the necessity for state authorities to adhere strictly to the Supreme Court's directives on demolition actions - The reliance on prior official sanction of constructions along riverbanks was discussed - Conclusion indicates the need for further examination regarding present constructions. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 10, 12)
(B) Procedural Compliance - Responsibilities of State Officers in ensuring that their actions conform to legal standards; actions contrary to directives may have stipulated consequences. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The intervention application regarding encroachments along the riverbanks of Rishpana River is being considered, with existing constructions claimed to be pre-dating the formation of Uttarakhand, while the petitioners allege recent illegalities.
Findings of Court:
The court directs compliance with earlier Apex Court rulings, emphasizing the responsibility of the State and its officers regarding unlawful constructions.
Issues: Whether state authorities have adhered to the Supreme Court directive on demolitions, and the status of constructions claimed to violate this directive.
Ratio Decidendi: The need for stringent compliance with judicial directives establishes that failure to do so entails potential legal repercussions for the officials involved.
Result: Further consideration of the case has been postponed to the last week of August.
SL. N o .
D a t e
Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s
COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS
W PPI L N o .3 6 o f 2 0 2 5 W i t h W PPI L N o .5 8 o f 2 0 1 9 W PPI L N o . 2 1 9 o f 2 0 2 1 W PPI L N o . 1 o f 2 0 2 3 W PPI L N O. 7 5 o f 2 0 2 5 H o n ’ b l e G. N a r e n d a r , C.J. H o n ’ b l e A l o k M a h r a , J. Mr. Abhijay Negi, Ms. Snighda Tiwari and Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel along with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 4. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel, submits that he has preferred an intervention application; that, the interventionists are notices, pursuant to orders of this Court directing action against the encroachers. 5. The intervention application, in our opinion, would not be of any avail, as consideration of demolition action is now governed by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures , In Re, 2025 (5) SCC 1. 6. It is needless to state that State and its Officers are required to ensure compliance of their action with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as noted supra. The course of action to be adopted by the authorities and the consequences of their failure, to abide by the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above ruling
m are well settled. 7. In the event, the officers transgress the boundaries set out in the order above noted, the consequences that follow are also stipulated therein. 8. In that view, we are of the opinion that the State Authorities would strictly ensure compliance with the directions issued in the ruling noted Supra i.e. 2025 (5) SCC 1. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the intervener, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia submit that several buildings, including the Aakshwani and other public buildings have been constructed on the riverbanks of Rishpana River. 10. Per contra, learned Chief Standing Counsel would submit that the allegations are made without any basis and that the constructions have been completed even prior to the creation of the Uttarakhand State. 11. In that view, the petitioners and the interventionist shall examine the same and, in the event, there is any material they desire to share with the Court, they may do so by furnishing a copy of the same to the C.S.C. 12. In view of the copious rains that the State is receiving and the monsoon having set-in with full vigour, we are of the opinion that the further consideration of the instant PIL can be postponed to the last week of August. 13. List this case on 25.08.2025. (Alok Mahra, J.) (G. Narendar, C.J.) 14.07.2025 14.07.2025 amta
