HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3251 of 2024 Mohd. Yusuf ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. T.S. Bindra and Mr. Abhishek Anthwal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Mahendra Singh Bisht, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the Caveator. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:- “A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 01/01/2024, passed by the Vice Chairman of Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority in File bearing No.7656/M.S. L- 0019/21-22 (Annexure no.1 to the Writ Petition) and the order dated 06/09/2024 passed by Joint Chief Administrator Uttarakhand Housing And Urban Development Authority Dehradun in in Revision No. 11 of 2024, “Mohd. Yusuf vs. Ashish Agarwal and Ors. (Annexure no.2 to the Writ Petition” cancelling the sanctioned map bearing map no. L-00149/21-22, for raising constructions over immovable properties bearing Khasra Nos. 110, 111, 112, 117Ka, 119, 120, 121, situated at Kargi Grant Dehradun (Annexure no.3 to the writ Petition). B. Issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 C. Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The respondent nos.5 and 6 filed a map to the respondent no.4, Vice Chairman, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority at Dehradun (“MDDA”), which was sanctioned. The petitioner filed an application under Section 15(9) of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 (“the Act”) for cancellation of the sanctioned map that was submitted by respondent the nos.5 and 6. The application under Section 15(9) of the Act filed by the petitioner was rejected on 01.01.2024 by the respondent no.4. In fact, in a note- sheet, the respondent no.4 noted “lger” (agreed). This order was conveyed to the petitioner by a letter dated 06.01.2024 of the Superintendent Engineer of the MDDA. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner challenged the order in revision, bearing Revision No.11 of 2024, Mohd. Yusuf vs. Shri Ashish Agarwal and others, in the court of Joint Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority, Dehradun. The revision was dismissed on 06.09.2022. 3 4. The core submission that was made on behalf of the petitioner is that an application under Section 15(9) of the Act has not been decided by the respondent no.4; he has not recorded any reason; he has not applied his mind; simply he wrote “lger” (agreed) on the note-sheet, which is no disposal of an application under Section 15(9) of the Act. He would also submit that the order rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 15(9) of the Act is not a reasoned order. It does not make any basis of judicial review and this defect, it is argued, could not have been cured in the revision. Although, it is argued that in the revision also, the order is not reasoned. It is argued that the issue that was raised by the petitioner has not been considered and decided. 5. The matter was heard at a great length. But, it at one stage, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 and learned counsel for the respondent nos.6 and 7 would submit while quashing the impugned orders, the matter may be remanded back for fresh decision on the application under Section 15(9) of the Act filed by the petitioner. 4 6. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 and learned counsel for the respondent nos.6 and 7. 7. The impugned orders are set aside. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the matter is remanded to the respondent no.4 to take a fresh decision on the application under Section 15(9) of the Act filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.03.2025 Sanjay