HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.2332 of 2025 (M/S) Senior Citizen Welfare Association (Regd.) ….......Petitioner Vs. Delhi Apartments (Pvt.) Ltd. and others ……....... Respondents Present : Mr. Sahil Mullick, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for respondent no.5. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) A litigation is pending before Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Dehradun (“the RERA”) in terms of Complaint No.7 of 2025 (“the complaint”) with regard to some issues pertaining to Deep Ganga Apartments Haridwar. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks directions that till the complaint is decided by the RERA, the respondents may be directed to maintain status quo qua plot no.5, measuring 8094 Square Meters, situated at Village Salempur Mahdood, Sector 5A, SIDCUL, Haridwar. The petitioner also seeks directions that the RERA may be directed to decide the interim relief application filed by the petitioner by the next date of hearing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Deep Ganga Apartments have been constructed by the respondent no.1/Delhi Apartments (Pvt.) Ltd.; the petitioner is Senior Citizens Welfare Association (Regd.), who are residing in the apartments, 2 but now, the respondent no.1 is trying to raise constructions on a piece of land, which is otherwise used as Children Park. He submits that the complaint has been filed before the RERA, in which, interim relief application is not being decided; the dates are being fixed. He also admits that the respondent no.1 has also filed Original Suit No.199 of 2025, M/S Delhi Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sehdev Sharma and others, in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar, which is still pending, in which interim relief application is pending. Therefore, indulgence of this Court is required in this matter. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that along with Annexure No.2, the petitioner has filed a sanctioned plan map of Deep Ganga Apartments; there are four towers, which have already been made on a certain piece of land; the parks, as shown in the sanctioned map, are in its existence. He submits that in the center of these houses, an approved mall is to be constructed on plot no.5. But, when the respondent no.1 tried to raise construction for their mall, it was objected to by the residents of Deep Ganga Apartments on the ground that commercial construction should not be made. Thereafter, it was converted into a residential complex, but still it was objected to by the residents of Deep Ganga Apartments that if a high tower is raised, it may obstruct air, sunlight, etc. Therefore, it is argued that the entire plan has been changed and instead of raising residential complex, the respondent no.1 has decided to sell the land for raising construction of Villas, may be up to two floor only. But still, it is argued that it is objected by the residents of Deep Ganga 3 Apartments. He would submit that the matter is pending before the RERA and the respondent no.1 has also filed a civil suit seeking injunction against the petitioner as the petitioner’s Association are intervening and obstructing the respondent no.1 in developing that area. 5. The petitioner’s complaint is pending before the RERA. The last date fixed in the RERA was 15.07.2025, when next date is fixed for 22.08.2025. It is the claim of the petitioner that he has also sought interim relief in terms of restraining the respondent no.1 to raise further construction on that land. 6. In so far as, indulgence of this Court is concerned, even it appears that the petitioner has not placed before the Court the entire material because what is being argued is that in an approved plan, a Children Park is approved, but it is being changed by raising construction on it by the respondent no.1. But, no such sanctioned plan has been placed by the petitioner, in which any Children Park is shown, on which, it is alleged that the construction is being made. Annexure No.2, which is filed by the petitioner is a plan. It has multiple parks. It has not been indicated, as to on which portion of this plan, such park is approved on which now construction is raised by the respondent no.1. Merely by saying, this Court may not make indulgence in such matters, when the issue is pending consideration before the RERA. 7. Moreover, it is admitted that the respondent no.1 has filed a civil suit. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil suit is not maintainable. As stated, the respondent 4 no.1 has filed an application before the RERA with regard to jurisdiction, which means, the petitioner is challenging the jurisdiction of the civil court for entertaining the civil suit filed by someone and respondent no.1 is challenging the jurisdiction of the RERA for the complaint which has been filed by the petitioner before the RERA. It is also admitted that in the civil suit the respondent no.1 has sought directions for restraining the petitioner for interfering into the peaceful possession. Definitely, if any interim relief application is pending in that civil suit, parties may have their say on that issue and it will find disposal accordingly. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any intervention in this writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 8. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.08.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bb d504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255 DD8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DE AE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.08.19 15:23:13 +05'30'