Mohd Ali v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

WPMS/2122/2026

Mohd Ali --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sheeba Ahmed, Advocate, holding brief of Mohd. Shafy, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶2Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Akshit Gururani, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1.

¶3Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶4Petitioner raised construction in Village Bailjuri, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

¶5District Level Development Authority, Udham Singh Nagar passed a demolition order against petitioner on the ground that such construction was raised without obtaining sanction from Development Authority. In demolition order, it was mentioned that petitioner is involved in illegal plotting of agricultural land, without prior permission of the competent authority. It was further mentioned in the demolition order that he has build five residential

apartments for the purposes of selling to homebuyers. Petitioner filed appeal against demolition order, which was dismissed. He thereafter filed revision petition, which too has been dismissed by the competent authority. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging all three orders.

¶6Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an agriculturist; he has no intention of constructing residential apartments for sale, and in fact, petitioner is ready to give an undertaking before Development Authority that he will not do illegal plotting of agricultural field and he will not raise construction only for the purpose of selling constructed apartments. He submits that petitioner applied for compounding of construction raised, however, his application was cursorily rejected without examining the issues involved. He submits that petitioner be permitted to make fresh application for compounding and competent authority in the Development Authority be directed to consider petitioner's prayer as per law.

¶7Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that petitioner so far has raised walls for constructing only six rooms, therefore, the allegation that petitioner is building residential apartments for the purpose of sale is absolutely incorrect. He submits that petitioner is constructing a residential house for his own personal use.

¶8Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel appearing for Development Authority submits that since the area is within the purview of Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973, therefore, construction, if any in that area, has to be raised only after getting necessary sanction from the Development Authority.

¶9Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make fresh application for compounding. With his application, petitioner shall also give an undertaking before the Secretary of the Development Authority that he will not exploit agricultural land for commercial purpose, till time competent authority declares the said land as non-agricultural. If petitioner makes such application along with the undertaking before the competent authority within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within three months thereafter. For a period of fourteen weeks or till decision is taken on petitioner's compounding application, whichever is earlier, status quo qua the construction raised shall be maintained.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

12.08.2026 Navin

NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3ctia15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.08.12 19:19:15 +05'30'