HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/B) No. 883 of 2025 Tirupati Associates ......Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Present:

Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1, 2 & 5.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6/Municipal Corporation.

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent Municipal Corporation and its officers to forthwith discharge their statutory duty by taking immediate steps to demolish the dangerous and dilapidated building bearing Property No. 29/49, situated at Rajpur Road, Mansharam Building, near Dhara Police Chowki, Dehradun.

(ii) Direct the respondent Municipal Corporation to provide a status report on the steps taken to secure and demolish the structure bearing Property No. 29/49, situated at Rajpur Road, Mansharam Building, near Dhara Police Chowki, Dehradun.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to adopt the process of demolition of dilapidated structures of Mansharam Building in question situated at Dhara Police Chowki in line of the spirit of the judgment dated 27.12.2013 passed in WPPIL No. 87 of 2012, Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand as was adopted for redevelopment of Chakrata Road specially in terms of the observations made by this Court in reference to the building posing threat to the commuters; and also in terms of the observations made vide order dated 17.02.2025 passed in WPPIL No. 05 of 2025, Kalagrah Kalyan and Uthyaan Samiti Native Habitats of Kalagarh v.

State of Uttarakhand.

(iv) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(v) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased first and second floors of the property, as Property No. 29/49, situated at Rajpur Road, Mansharam Building, near Dhara Police Chowki, Dehradun. The petitioner did receive a notice for demolition of the building, as it in dilapidated condition on 11.07.2025, which was replied by the petitioner on 15.07.2025 requesting the respondent Municipal Corporation Dehradun to demolish the dilapidated part of the building as ground floor and basement are not in the ownership of the petitioner. He submits that thereafter, nothing has been done.

4. The Court asked learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation to tell as to why the building has not been demolished? As to whether the notice was given to the owner of the basement and ground floor of the property. He submits that perhaps notice would have been given. Thereafter, the Court requested the concerned officer to join the proceedings

5. At 2:25 p.m., when the matter was taken up, Ms. Rachna Payal, Executive Engineer joined the proceedings through video conferencing. She submits that the notice was also given to the owner of the basement and ground floor of the property. Thereafter, both the petitioner and the owner of the basement and ground floor of the property approached her and told that they would demolish the property on their own. The Court wanted to know from Ms. Rachan Payal, Executive Engineer as to whether it was documented? The answer is in negative.

6. The petitioner also claims that the part of the property which he owns is in dilapidated condition and it deserves to be demolished. According to him, he has requested the Municipal Corporation, Dehradun to demolish the property on his part. The expenses may be claimed from the petitioner, which he is ready to pay. 7. In view of the abov