HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2354 of 2025

Sanjay Pathak ….....Petitioner

Versus

Joint Chief Administrator and others ….….Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the following:-

(i) Order dated 22.07.2022, passed by the respondent

no.3/the Vice Chairman, District Level Development Authority, Nainital (“the Authority”) passed under Section 27 of the Uttarakhand Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (“the Act”). By which,

demolition order has been passed.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the

respondent no.2/Chairman of the Authority in appeal under Section 28 of the Act. By it, the appeal has

been dismissed; and

(iii) Order dated 22.07.2025, passed in Revision No. 18 of

2024, Sanjay Pathak Vs. Secretary, District Level Development Authority by the respondent no.1/Joint Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority, Dehradun. By it, the

revision has been dismissed.

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

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased a plot situated in Kahalkweera Patti Bhowali, District Nainital from one Lalit Joshi by way of registered sale deed dated 08.01.2018. The petitioner’s name has been mutated in the revenue record. The petitioner proceeded to construct a residential complex on the plot. The petitioner was not clear as to whether the Authority had jurisdiction in the area or not. On 27.10.2020, a notice was issued to one Mr. G.K. Pandey under Sections 27 (1) and 28 (1) of the Act, calling upon him to produce the documents with regard to cottage and flats. Mr G.K. Pandey, according to the petitioner, was nowhere related to the petitioner. He was a stranger. Mr. G.K. Pandey, according to the petitioner, had replied to the notice, but without considering the reply, the Vice Chairman of the Authority by the impugned order dated 22.07.2022, passed an order under Section 27 of the Act for the demolition of the property. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on 05.06.2024 and the revision against it was also dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the plot. He was not given show cause notice before the order under Section 27 of the Act was passed for demolition. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has always been ready to seek compounding of the map. His compounding has not been accepted on the ground that it is not possible to compound the offence. It is argued that the petitioner is ready to make changes in the building and submit fresh map for compounding. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, in fact, has deposited the compounding fees with the Authority.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/Authority submits that the notice under Section 27 of the Act may be given to the owner or the concerned person, which is evident from the proviso to Section 27 of the Act. He further submits that the petitioner has alongwith some other persons raised multiple flats on a portion of land without approved sanctioned plan. The map which was given for compounding is not compoundable because map for entire building has not been submitted. He submits that the construction was raised in defiance to the provisions of the Act. Hence, the lawful orders have been passed.

6. Till date, at no point of time did the petitioner ever raised a plea that he was not served with a notice before order of demolition was passed by Vice Chairman of the Authority on 22.07.2024. In this petition the petitioner writes that a notice was issued to one G.K. Pandey, who is a stranger. In para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner again writes that G.K. Pandey had replied, but it was not considered by the Vice Chairman of the Authority. The question is that if G.K. Pan