Roorkee Building’s Remaining Non-Compoundable Portion Must Go In 3 Months Unless State Grants Relaxation Within 2: Uttarakhand HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the remaining non-compoundable construction should be removed, and within what period, having regard to the respondents’ undertaking and pending relaxation application.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of with directions that the remaining non-compoundable construction be removed within three months from the order if the State Government did not grant relaxation within two months.

It also directed

The District Magistrate, Haridwar, was directed to determine whether the construction encroached on government or Nazool land and, if so, to take steps to remove the encroachment within six months. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the District Magistrate within 24 hours.

01Facts

The petitioner alleged that respondents Nos. 5–8 had carried out unauthorised construction at 3 Civil Lines, Roorkee, contrary to the Building Bye-laws and on government or Nazool land.

¶ 7

The private respondents applied for compounding under a one-time settlement scheme; part of the construction was compounded, while the non-compoundable portion was ordered to be removed.

¶ 8

The respondents stated that approximately 700 square metres had been demolished, but that demolition of the remainder could threaten the main building. They undertook to remove the remaining portion, subject to the State Government’s decision on their application for relaxation under the Building Bye-laws, 2011.

¶ 10–11

02Issues

i.1. Whether the remaining non-compoundable construction should be removed, and within what period, having regard to the respondents’ undertaking and pending relaxation application.

¶ 9–11

ii.2. Whether the construction encroached on government or Nazool land and, if so, what action should be taken to remove the encroachment.

¶ 11

03Law Applied

The Court referred to the Building Bye-laws, 2011, including the distinction between construction eligible for compounding and non-compoundable construction, and to the respondents’ application for relaxation under those Bye-laws.

¶ 8, 10–11

The judgment identifies no particular statutory provision or precedent. It directed that any alleged encroachment on government or Nazool land be examined by the District Magistrate and that, if established, steps be taken to remove it.

¶ 11

04Reasoning

The Court took account of the substantial demolition already completed, the respondents’ undertaking to remove the remaining unauthorised construction, and the possibility of State-granted relaxation under the applicable Bye-laws.

¶ 10–11

It therefore made removal of the remaining non-compoundable portion contingent on the State Government not granting relaxation within two months, while allowing a further period for removal. Separately, because the land’s government or Nazool status required examination, the Court directed the District Magistrate to determine whether the construction encroached on such land and to act if it did.

¶ 11