ANUYA RANA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, THROUGH SECRETARY

UKHC010076452019

2026:UHC:9330-DB


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
October 13, 2026
Special Appeal No.544 of 2019

Smt. Anuya Rana ----Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant
Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1
Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for MDDA/respondent no.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)


1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner
challenging the judgment and order dated 06.05.2019 passed
by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.134/2018. By
the said judgment, the writ petition filed by the appellant was
dismissed by holding that writ petition alleging non compliance
of demolition order is not maintainable, as demolition of a
building is within exclusive domain of development authority
and as per the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, demolition
has been carried out. However, liberty was given to the
appellant to get his rights, if any, settled in relation to the
property in question from the competent civil court. The
1

UKHC010076452019

2026:UHC:9330-DB

relevant extract of the impugned judgment is reproduced
below:-
“22. Thus, this Court is of the view that, at this stage
considering the rival contentions raised by the petitioner as well
as respondent supported by the report submitted by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, it entails an appreciation of an evidence and
settlement of rights between the private parties. Admittedly, as
far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has got no right
or title vested in him in the remaining part of the property of
respondent no. 3, which has been left over after enforcement of
the order dated 23.05.2012.
23. The any anticipated inaction, which has been contended
and complained by the present petitioner, would not make the
writ petition maintainable as it is exclusively within the domain of
the development authority, which as per the report submitted by
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, has been complied with and part
declared unauthorized by the order dated 23.05.2012 has been
already demolished, but, still since the issue involves an
appreciation of evidence on record, this writ petition is dismissed
without prejudicing the right of the petitioner to get settled his
rights, if any, in relation to the property in question from the
competent civil court.
24. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
25. After conclusion of the judgment, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has prayed for that the observation, which has
been made in the order will effect the Suit, hence, it is clarified
that in case if the petitioner prefers any Suit, the findings
recorded in the present judgment may not prejudice the court
below. Hence, a direction may be issued that the Suit would be
decided without being prejudiced by the findings recorded in the
present judgment.”

2. The appellant contended before the learned Single
Judge that a demolition order was passed against the
respondent no.3 by Secretary, MDDA on 23.05.2012, however,
the same has not been executed and the structure raised by
2

UKHC010076452019

2026:UHC:9330-DB

respondent no.3 has not been demolished. Learned Single
Judge called a report from Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned.
Extract of that report is reproduced in para 7 of the impugned
judgment. Perusal of the extracted portion of report indicates
that demolition order was carried out and only a small portion
of the structure was left on the site. Appellant wanted the
remaining structure to be removed so that his property
becomes commercially viable. Learned Single Judge held that
such relief cannot be granted in a writ petition as it is purely a
civil dispute and accordingly liberty was granted to the writ
petitioner (appellant) to approach the competent civil court.

3. We do not find any reason to interfere with the
judgment rendered by learned Single Judge. Even though
appellant’s property is at the back side of the structure in
question, which is abutting Dehradun-Chakrata Road, and
appellant’s property would become commercially viable when
the structure belonging to respondent no.3 is removed from the
site, however, this alone will not create any right in favour of
appellant to file a writ petition for removing the remaining
structure of respondent no.3. The structure which appellant
wants to be removed is standing over the land belonging to
respondent no.3 and Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.3, submits that such remaining
structure is not violating any provision of the building bye-laws
3

UKHC010076452019

2026:UHC:9330-DB

of the MDDA. Thus, the remaining structure of respondent no.3
cannot be directed to be removed, merely because it is creating
hurdle in the way of appellant developing his property for
commercial purpose.

4. Learned Single Judge was, thus, right in not
interfering in the matter. We do not find any scope for
interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. We,
however, make it clear that, if any proceeding is pending before
the Commissioner in appeal under the provisions of the
Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development
Act, 1973, the same shall be decided on merit uninfluenced by
any observation made by us in this order.

_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.





____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 13.10.2025

Rajni



4