HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2354 of 2025 Sanjay Pathak ….....Petitioner Versus Joint Chief Administrator and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the following:- (i) Order dated 22.07.2022, passed by the respondent no.3/the Vice Chairman, District Level Development Authority, Nainital (“the Authority”) passed under Section 27 of the Uttarakhand Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (“the Act”). By which, demolition order has been passed. (ii) Judgment and order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the respondent no.2/Chairman of the Authority in appeal under Section 28 of the Act. By it, the appeal has been dismissed; and (iii) Order dated 22.07.2025, passed in Revision No. 18 of 2024, Sanjay Pathak Vs. Secretary, District Level Development Authority by the respondent no.1/Joint Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority, Dehradun. By it, the revision has been dismissed. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased a plot situated in Kahalkweera Patti Bhowali, District Nainital from one Lalit Joshi by way of registered sale deed dated 08.01.2018. The petitioner’s name has been mutated in the revenue record. The petitioner proceeded to construct a residential complex on the plot. The petitioner was not clear as to whether the Authority had jurisdiction in the area or not. On 27.10.2020, a notice was issued to one Mr. G.K. Pandey under Sections 27 (1) and 28 (1) of the Act, calling upon him to produce the documents with regard to cottage and flats. Mr G.K. Pandey, according to the petitioner, was nowhere related to the petitioner. He was a stranger. Mr. G.K. Pandey, according to the petitioner, had replied to the notice, but without considering the reply, the Vice Chairman of the Authority by the impugned order dated 22.07.2022, passed an order under Section 27 of the Act for the demolition of the property. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on 05.06.2024 and the revision against it was also dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the plot. He was not given show cause notice before the order under Section 27 of the Act was passed for demolition. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has always been ready to seek compounding of the map. His compounding has not been accepted on the ground that it is not possible to compound the offence. It is argued that the petitioner is ready to make changes in the building and submit fresh map for compounding. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, in fact, has deposited the compounding fees with the Authority. 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/Authority submits that the notice under Section 27 of the Act may be given to the owner or the concerned person, which is evident from the proviso to Section 27 of the Act. He further submits that the petitioner has alongwith some other persons raised multiple flats on a portion of land without approved sanctioned plan. The map which was given for compounding is not compoundable because map for entire building has not been submitted. He submits that the construction was raised in defiance to the provisions of the Act. Hence, the lawful orders have been passed. 6. Till date, at no point of time did the petitioner ever raised a plea that he was not served with a notice before order of demolition was passed by Vice Chairman of the Authority on 22.07.2024. In this petition the petitioner writes that a notice was issued to one G.K. Pandey, who is a stranger. In para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner again writes that G.K. Pandey had replied, but it was not considered by the Vice Chairman of the Authority. The question is that if G.K. Pandey was a stranger, how come the petitioner know that the notice was issued to G.K. Pandey and he had replied to it. If G.K. Pandey was some stranger, why should he reply to any notice, which was not concerned to him. These things have not been clarified by the petitioner himself. As stated, the petitioner has never objected or raised an issue that he was not served with a notice. 7. The first proviso to Section 27 of the Act reads as follows:- “Provided that no such order shall be made unless the owner or the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the order should not be made.” 4 8. The above provision abundantly makes it clear that notice under Section 27 of the Act is not to be given to the owner alone. It may be given to the person concerned. In the instant case, by the pleadings of the petitioner itself, it is clear that it was given to a person concerned, who had replied to it. Moreover, as stated, the petitioner has never raised this issued any time before. Fact remains that after initial notice of demolition under Section 27 of the Act, the petitioner did challenge the order in appeal and further in revision. The petitioner had immense opportunity to defend himself. 9. In the matters of unauthorised construction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Kaniz Ahmed Vs. Sabuddin and others, 2025 INSC 610 has observed as follows:- “5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy.................................” 10. And further, the Hon’ble Court observed as follows:- “7 Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in permissions in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put 5 otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society. [See; Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]” 11. Admittedly, the petitioner did not get any map sanctioned from the Authority. He raised construction. The construction is admittedly, unauthorised. It has not been compounded. The plea of compounding submitted by the petitioner has not been accepted by the authority on the ground that the proposal as submitted may not be compounded. The petitioner has got multiple opportunities to defend himself. He was afforded opportunities of hearing before the impugned orders were passed. In view of it, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the case. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. The writ petition is dismissed, in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 08.08.2025 Jitendra