SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D1- 14 WPMS No.2082 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Ajay Joshi and Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the respondent no.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he is owner of a property in Dehradun. The plot adjacent to it belongs to the respondent no.2, Ashok Kumar Gupta. He had sold the property to the respondent nos. 3 and 4, but, thereafter, the respondent no.4 got a map sanctioned from the respondent no.1, the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun (“the Development Authority”) for raising construction on the property. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2, Ashok Kumar Gupta, has misled the Development Authority and did not place correct facts while getting the map sanctioned. Therefore, the instant petition has been filed that the map that has been sanctioned by the respondent no.1, the Development Authority, in favour of the respondent no.2, Ashok Kumar Gupta, may be quashed, and some other ancillary reliefs have also been sought. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the respondent no.2 was the owner of the property; he had sold it to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the year 2015, but, thereafter, he placed the map for construction of a house to the respondent no.1/the Development Authority, on the same plot, which he had already sold in the year 2015, and the map was sanctioned in the year 2017. It is argued that the map was sanctioned in the favour of the respondent no.2, who was not the owner of the property on the date when it was sanctioned. Therefore, the map needs to be quashed; in fact, there are several cases pending between the parties, as the right of the petitioner is being infringed by the private respondents while raising the construction. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already filed an application under Section 15(9) of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 (“the Act”), for cancellation of the map that has been sanctioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent no.1/the Development Authority, may be directed to decide the application under Section 15(9) of the Act filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/the Development Authority, submits that the application that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 15(9) of the Act shall be decided within a period of four weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned counsel for the respondent no.1/the Development Authority. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.1/The Development Authority, to take a decision on the application given by the petitioner under Section 15(9) of the Act, within a period of four weeks from today, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. (Ravindra Maithani J.) 14.07.2025 RV