2026:UHC:612 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 228 of 2026 21st January, 2026 Dinesh Chandra Singh Rawat ………….Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others …….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Addl. C.S.C. along with Mr. Devesh Ghilidyal, Gajendra Tripathi and Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, learned Brief Holder for the State. Ms. Sangeet Patni proxy counsel for Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for respondent no.2 Mr. Mohd. Suhail, proxy counsel for Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 01.03.2023, 12.07.2023, and 28.10.2024 passed respectively by the Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Nainital; the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital; and the Joint Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority, Dehradun. The petitioners further seek a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Nainital to sanction 2026:UHC:612 2 the building map of the petitioner’s residential premises, ignoring the applicability of the Government Order dated 01.05.2015, as all statutory formalities stood completed much prior thereto. 2. Petitioner purchased a plot measuring 81.78 sq. meters situated at Ashdale Compound, Sukhatal Region, Nainital, through a registered sale deed dated 16.01.2006. Mutation was effected on 07.09.2007, and municipal taxes have been regularly paid thereafter. The petitioner applied for sanction of the building map well before 2015. A report dated 31.03.2008 submitted by the District Development Authority categorically recorded that the land in question lies above the submerged area of Sukhatal and that several residential constructions already existed in the vicinity, whose maps had been sanctioned prior to 1995. Subsequent deliberations culminated in a decision permitting construction subject to NOCs and maintaining a prescribed distance above the water level. The petitioner duly obtained No Objection Certificates from all concerned departments, including Geology, Town Planning, Nagar Palika Parishad, and Forest Department, and deposited the requisite fees as demanded. The Junior Engineer, vide report dated 19.04.2014, confirmed completion of all formalities and forwarded the proposal for sanction. Thus, the 2026:UHC:612 3 petitioner’s case had reached a conclusive stage prior to issuance of the Government Order dated 01.05.2015. 3. It is stated that the respondents rejected the petitioner’s claim on the ground that the land allegedly falls within 30 meters of Sukhatal Lake and is hit by the Master Plan, 2015. This stand is misconceived and unsustainable, for the following reasons: (i) No final demarcation of Sukhatal Lake boundaries exists till date, and no authenticated map has been produced to establish that the petitioner’s land falls within the prohibited zone; (ii) The Government Order dated 01.05.2015 and the Master Plan, 2015 cannot operate retrospectively, particularly where the petitioner had already completed all statutory formalities and acquired a vested right for consideration under the then prevailing regime; (iii) The respondents have failed to rebut the admitted position that similarly situated residential buildings adjacent to the petitioner’s land have already been sanctioned and exist on record, thereby rendering the action discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (iv) The revisional authority has ignored its own binding precedent dated 29.09.2023 passed in Revision No. 672 2026:UHC:612 4 of 2023, wherein in identical circumstances, the matter was remanded after holding that completion of formalities prior to 2015 and absence of demarcation disentitled the authority from rejecting the claim outright. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind, arbitrariness, and patent illegality. The respondents have unjustifiably applied the Government Order dated 01.05.2015 retrospectively, contrary to settled legal principles. In the absence of any final demarcation of lake boundaries, the conclusion that the petitioner’s land falls within the restricted zone is purely presumptive. 5. The inconsistent approach adopted by the authorities, particularly in ignoring their own earlier decision in a similarly situated matter, further vitiates the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 01.03.2023, 12.07.2023, and 28.10.2024 are hereby quashed. 6. The matter is remanded to the Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Nainital, who shall reconsider the petitioner’s application for sanction of the building map afresh, strictly in accordance with law, without applying the Government Order dated 01.05.2015, and after taking into account that all 2026:UHC:612 5 requisite formalities were completed prior to 2015 and that no final demarcation of Sukhatal Lake boundaries exists till date. 7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Vacation Judge 21.01.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:612 6