Advocates:
['SIDDHARTHA SINGH', 'DHARMENDRA BARTHWAL', '', 'M S TYAGI', 'DINESH GAHATORI', 'MAMTA JOSHI', 'M S TYAGIDINESH GAHATORIMAMTA JOSHI', 'C S C', 'RAVI BABULKAR', 'PUJA BANGA', '', 'J C KARNATAK', 'DINESH GAHATORI', 'SUSHIL VASHISTHA', 'VIVEK PATHAK ASHISH SINHA']

Reserved Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (PIL) No.26 of 2010

Reserved on: 20.08.2018

Decided on:24.08.2018

________________________________________________

Anil Kumar Gupta

..… Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others ...… Respondents

Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 6

& 7.

Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent no.5.

Coram:

Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, ACJ.

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Per: Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, ACJ.

Present petition has been filed pro bono publico to

highlight the unauthorized encroachments made on the

footpaths and roads at Rishikesh leading to acute traffic

jams throughout the towns of Uttarakhand. The petitioner

has also highlighted the unauthorized constructions and

encroachments made on the public land by the religious

bodies including the pollution of river Ganga and financial

irregularities in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh. The

petitioner has also highlighted that the respondents have

not demolished Sai Mandir constructed on the public road,

though the appeal was dismissed under Section 27 of the

Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

The Nagar Palika has regularized 27 encroachers on the

Government land at Virbhadra Marg.

2.

The

respondents

have

admitted

1127

encroachments in Ghat Marg, Mukherji Marg, Agnihotri

Marg, Kshettra Road, Tilak Road, Lajpat Rai Marg, Bhairo

Mandir, Gole Market, Chandreshwar Marg, Haridwar Marg,

2

Hiralal Marg, Maniram Marg, Bengali Mandir Marg,

Sudama Marg, Pushkar Mandir Marg, Jeevani Mai Marg,

Subhash Chawk, Jhanda Chawk, Main Bazaar, Nabha

House (Ghat Marg) in Rishikesh. The unscrupulous persons

have encroached upon and constructed the shops over

Saraswati Drain to the extent of about 57 meters. The

respondents have also not evicted 145 encroachers, who

have encroached upon National Highway-58. The petitioner

has also placed on record the details of 500 persons who

have encroached upon Railway Road, Shyampur Bye-pass

Road, Pushulok, Bairage Marg, Veer Bhadra Road, Risikesh

Doiwala Marg. As many as 13 unauthorized constructions

have also been raised in Navin Mandi Sthal.

3.

Initially, the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh

has granted permission to the Sai Sewa Samiti on

28.05.2009, to raise the construction. Thereafter, it was

withdrawn. The Haridwar Development Authority has

ordered for demolition of temple on 08.07.2009 against

which Sai Sewa Samiti filed an appeal before the

Commissioner. The Commissioner has dismissed the same

on 18.02.2010.

4.

The petitioner has placed on record, the news

item whereby 13 temples have encroached upon the public

land. The illegal encroachment has led to the pollution in

Saraswati Nala. The Saraswati Nala has not been cleaned

for last 10 years. Even the Nagar Palika Parishad has

constructed 13 buildings without obtaining the permission

from the Haridwar Development Authority. The petitioner

has also highlighted the financial irregularities committed

by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh including purchase

and installation of Signal Lights in Rishikesh, decrease in

collection of house tax, collecting house tax from the

persons unauthorizedly occupying the Government land.

3

The petitioner has prayed for the removal of encroachments

from the public land, public roads, public paths and also

demolition of unauthorized construction which was raised

without obtaining the permission from Nagar Palika

Parishad

and

Haridwar

Development

Authority.

The

petitioner has also highlighted that the temples are raising

construction on public land with impunity.

5.

The respondents have filed counter affidavits to

the petition filed by the petitioner.

6.

As far as Sai Sewa Samiti’s case is concerned, it

is stated that after the orders of Commi