HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.NARENDAR

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

Writ Petition 1051 (M/B) of 2025

2^nd January, 2026

Sanjay Kumar and another -----------Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ----------Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. C.S.Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Shalendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent

no.3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT: (per SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Draft Master

Plan 2041, being arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires, un- constitutional and violative of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973 (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ

petition).

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the

Respondents not to proceed with or implement the Draft Master Plan 2041 until the statutory Master Plan 2025 is fully implemented as required under

section 13 of the 1973 Act.

(iii) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the

Respondents from altering land- use classifications, issuing sanctions, or taking any action pursuant to

the Draft Plan 2041.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus direct the respondents to conduct a fresh participatory planning process, ensuring public disclosure, mandatory NOCs, GIS-based mapping and statutory compliance.

(v) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus direct the respondents to protect the religious institutions, riverbank ecology, and residential/livelihood rights of affected persons as guaranteed under articles 14, 21, 25, 26 and 300A and direct the respondents to prepare the Rehabilitation and compensation mechanism ensuring livelihood and property protection.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the Draft Master Plan 2041, the respondent authority has proposed alteration in land used categories prescribed in the existing 2025 Plan. The land classified as Residential, Recreational, or Green Zone has been arbitrarily re-designated as Built-up, Commercial, Tourism and PS-4 Zones and this overhaul of land use without statutory backing is ultra vires, mala fide, and contrary to settled law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier the plot of petitioner no.1 was in Commercial Zone, which is now shown to be in the Zone T-5, i.e., in the Integrated Transport Zone, thereby reducing the utility of the plot, for which, the petitioner no.1 has filed objection to the proposed Master plan.

4. In the same manner, the petitioner no.2 plot though remains in the residential zone, however, in the proposed master plan, there is a road which is proposed to be made on the plot and, as such, the petitioner no. 2 is precluded from using his plot and the petitioner no.2 has also preferred an objection against the proposed road on his plot in the new master plan.

5. Learned counsel for the State and respondent no.3 however submits that the petitioner has filed the writ petition against the Draft Master Plan which is premature and the representation submitted by the petitioners are pending before the respondent no.2, i.e., Chief Town Planner, Town & Country Planning Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and the said authority may be directed to consider and decide the objections of the petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition against the draft master plan is not maintainable however, a liberty is given to the petitioners to put forth their grievance before the respondent no. 2.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2, i.e., Chief Town Planner, Town & Country Planning Departme