An adjoining owner’s commercial interests alone do not justify writ-ordered removal of another’s structure.

The appellant challenged a judgment dismissing her writ petition, which sought enforcement of a demolition order dated 23 May 2012 against respondent no. 3’s structure. The Single Judge relied on a Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s report stating that the demolition had been carried out, with only a small portion of the structure remaining, and left the appellant to pursue any property rights before a competent civil court

In appeal, the appellant argued that removing the remaining structure would make her adjoining property commercially viable

1. Whether the appellant could obtain a writ directing removal of the remaining structure, given that the demolition order had been partly implemented and the structure stood on respondent no. 3’s land

2. Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition warranted interference in the special appeal

The Court applied the principle that a person’s commercial interest in developing adjoining property does not, by itself, confer a right to seek removal by writ of a structure standing on another person’s land, particularly where the remaining structure is not shown to violate the applicable building bye-laws

Disputes requiring assessment of evidence or settlement of private property rights may be pursued before the competent civil court

The Court also directed that any pending appeal under the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 be decided on its merits, uninfluenced by its observations

The Court accepted that removal of the remaining structure might improve the commercial viability of the appellant’s property, but held that this did not create a legal right to compel its removal.

The structure stood on respondent no. 3’s land, and respondent no. 3’s counsel submitted that it did not contravene MDDA building bye-laws. In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to direct demolition or to disturb the Single Judge’s decision, leaving any private property-rights dispute to the civil court

It clarified that any pending appeal before the Commissioner under the 1973 Act must be decided on its merits, without being influenced by observations in the judgment