HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1466 of 2025 (M/S)

Desh Raj Singh ….....Petitioner Versus Joint Secretary, District Level Development Authority and another .….Respondents Present:-

Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondent no. 1.

Judgment

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

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

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.5.2025 passed by the court of learned Joint Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Zonal Office Haldwani, District Nainital in Case No. UCMS/NDA/C/0100/2025 being “State V/s Desh Raj Singh” (contained as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition.)

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent for de-sealing the property which had been sealed on 14.5.2025 in compliance of the impugned order dated 7.5.2025.

(III) Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(IV) Award the cost of the petition.”

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the residential premises of the petitioner has illegally been sealed without following the provisions of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning Development Act, 1973 (“the Act”). He would submit that for two reasons the sealing order was allegedly passed, namely – (i) the construction is not as per the sanctioned plan and (ii) the premises is being used as an Ashram. He would submit that, in fact, the petitioner was not given sufficient time to explain; the premises in question is not being used as an Ashram; in fact, it is a residential premises; for certain gatherings permission has already been granted by the City Magistrate, Haldwani, which is still valid.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petition should be entertained in view of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section

28-A(4) of the Act?

5. He would submit that, in fact, the petitioner’s property has already been sealed; the petitioner has been divested of his right to property as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which as such cannot be seen by the appellate authority.

6. The premises has been sealed under Section 28-A of the Act, which reads as follows:-

“28A. Power to seal unauthorised development. (1)

It shall be lawful for the Vice Chairman or an officer empowered by him in this behalf, as the case may be, at any time before or after making an order for the removal or discontinuation of any development under Section 27 or Section 28 to make any order directing the sealing of such development in a development area in such manner as may be prescribed for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act.

(2) Where any development has been sealed, the Vice-Chairman or the officer empowered by him in this behalf, as the case may be, may for the purpose of removing or discontinuing such development order the seal to be removed.

(3) No person shall remove such seal except under an order made under sub-section (2) by the Vice Chairman, or the officer empowered by him in this behalf.

(4) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may appeal to the Chairman against that order within thirty days from the date thereof and the Chairman may after hearing the parties to the appeal, either allow or dismiss the appeal.

(5) The decision of the Chairman shall be final.”

7. A bare perusal of sub-section (4) of Section 28-A of the Act reveals that if any party is aggrieved by such order, an appeal may be made. All the grounds that are taken in this writ petition, may definitely be taken in the appeal. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition in view of alternative efficacious remedy.

A