2025:UHC:7441 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2491/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Yogesh Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. According to petitioner, respondent nos. 4 & 5 are raising construction over the land situate in Ranipokhri Grant, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun, contrary to the Building Bye-lays and they have also encroached upon public road. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) To direct the respondent no. 2/Masoori Dehradun Development Authority to take decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 17.07.2025 (contained as Annexure No. 7 to this writ petition) in the light of order passed by the Appellate Authority (Commissioner/Chairman, Masoori Dehradun Development Authority), on 05.05.2025, in Case No. 100 of 2024-25 namely “Manmohan Singh Rawat vs. Masoori Dehradun Development Authority.” (ii) To stop the construction carried out by the respondent no. 4 & 5 in plot no. 412 Ga, Area 0.0385 hectare (385 sq mt) of Ranipokhari Grant, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun till decision is taken by the respondent nos. 2/Masoori Dehradun Development Authority, in the light of order passed by the appellate authority (Commissioner/Chairman, Masoori Dehradun Development Authority), on 05.05.2025, in Case No. 100 of 2024-25 namely “Manmohan Singh Rawat vs Masoori Dehradun Development Authority”. 5. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel 2025:UHC:7441 appearing for MDDA submits that this appears to be a private dispute between petitioner and respondent nos. 4 & 5, as petitioner has mentioned in his representation that the land belonging to his family has also been encroached by respondent nos. 4 & 5. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner submits that Secretary, MDDA had passed a sealing order, in respect of construction raised by respondent nos. 4 & 5, against which respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed an appeal and without complying with the conditions put by the Appellate Authority, construction was de-sealed. He further submits that respondent nos. 4 & 5 have not submitted compounding map, as yet. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. However, having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make fresh representation to Secretary, MDDA. If petitioner makes representation within two weeks from today, the Secretary shall look into the matter and pass appropriate order, as per law, within three months thereafter. It goes without saying that respondent nos. 4 & 5 and other stakeholders, if any, shall also be heard before taking any decision. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 22.08.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a 08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22D ACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.08.22 07:18:10 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7441