HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 244 of 2025 Smt. Arti Agarwal ...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents Present:- Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Devendra Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the MDDA. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 is raising a building contrary to the plan sanctioned by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Mussoorie-Dehradun Development Authority at the property bearing No. 86, DEhradun Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (in the prayer clause, it is property bearing no. 66, but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property No. is 86). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. In the instant matter, the respondent no. 2 was required to get instructions. On 03.03.2025, it was told on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that action has been taken by the respondent no. 2 and compoundable portion has been compounded. On 03.03.2025, the Court wanted to know as to what happened to the non-compoundable portion? Has it been demolished or not? 4. Today, the learned counsel for the MDDA gives the following statements:- (i) Some of the portion constructed by the respondent no. 5 has been compounded. 2 (ii) The remaining construction, which was done against the sanction plan and which was not compoundable is to be demolished by the respondent no. 5 within one month from the date of compounding of some of the portion. He would submit that the MDDA would ensure that this demolition is done. (iii) Learned counsel for the MDDA further gives statement that in case the respondent no. 5 does not demolish the non-compoundable portion, it shall be demolished by the MDDA within another one month. 5. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned counsel for the MDDA. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be given a liberty to approach this Hon’ble Court, if the demolition is not done as per the statement given by the learned counsel for the MDDA. 7. Liberty as aforesaid is granted to the petitioner. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.03.2025 Avneet/