2026:UHC:85-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/B) No.1131 of 2025 03 January, 2026 Tirupati Associates ---Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 through V.C. Mr. Shiv Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no.7 through V.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of directing and the mandamus commanding Respondent Municipal Corporation and its officers to take immediate steps for demolition of the remaining parts i.e. ground floor and basement of dilapidated building bearing Property No. 29/49, situated at Rajpur Road, Mansharam Building, near Dhara Police Chowki, Dehradun, in view of the report of the Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Dehradun, the survey report of the civil engineers, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Dehradun under Section 133 CrPC and in the same terms of the recommendations made by the Disaster Committee of Mitigation and Management Government of Uttarakhand as recorded in the judgment dated 27.12.2013 recorded in WPPIL No. 87 of 2012. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent Municipal Corporation to forthwith take 1 2026:UHC:85-DB steps under Section 331 (3) & (4) of the Municipal Corporation Act, in case the entire remaining dilapidated structure of Mansharam Building is not removed by respondent no. 7 and to follow the recommendations made by the Disaster Mitigation and Management Committee, Govt. of Uttarakhand as recorded in the judgment dated 27.12.2013 passed in WPPIL No. 87 of 2012. (iii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 2. According to petitioner, he purchased 1st and 2nd floor in a 100 years old building situated at Rajpur Road, Dehradun by means of a registered sale deed in the year 2024. 3. It is further the case of petitioner that the portion of building purchased by petitioner was in a dilapidated condition and Municipal Corporation by notice informed that structure of building has become dangerous and ultimately it was demolished by municipal authorities pursuant to order passed by Division Bench of this Court in WPMB No.883/2025. 4. According to petitioner, ground floor and basement of the same building is owned by respondent no.7 and the Executive Engineer, Nagar Nigam apprised Court during hearing in WPMS No.883 of 2025 that respondent no.7 has also assured that he himself will demolish the portion owned by him. 5. Grievance raised by petitioner is that even though the portion owned by petitioner has been demolished, however, remaining portion which is in ownership of respondent no.7 is not being demolished and municipal authorities are sleeping over the matter. 2 2026:UHC:85-DB 6. Counsel for petitioner has referred to notices issued by Municipal Corporation to respondent no.7 asking him to demolish the building. He further submits that proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were also initiated against respondent no.7 regarding the building and Municipal Corporation was directed by SDM concerned to demolish the portion of respondent no.7. Various other issues have been raised by petitioner in writ petition. This Court is not inclined to go into all the issues raised in writ petition, however, having regard to facts of the case and especially the threat, if any, posed by remaining structure of building, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is permitted to approach Municipal Commissioner by making a representation. 7. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition with liberty to petitioner to make representation to Municipal Commissioner highlighting issues canvassed before us within one week. If petitioner makes representation within stipulated time, Municipal Commissioner shall pass appropriate order, as per law, within six weeks thereafter. The Municipal Commissioner shall examine all the reports and shall also provide opportunity of hearing to respondent no.7 while passing any order. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 03.01.2026 SS 3