2026:UHC:1298 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2940 of 2024 25th February, 2026 Sunder Singh Tomar --Petitioner Versus 1: State Of Uttarakhand 2: Sub Divisional Magistrate 3: Nakul Tomar --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shashank Saun, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for MDDA. Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to decide the complaint of petitioner dated 30.01.2024 within one month. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he and the private respondent are family members between whom a property dispute exists. It is stated that in the year 2002, a partition suit under Sections 176/178 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was instituted, pursuant to which the property was divided and the respective co-sharers came into possession of their allotted shares. According to the petitioner, the property in question, comprising Khasra Nos. 2926 and 2996 situated at Tehsil Doiwala, District Dehradun, fell to his share. It is alleged that the private respondent, without obtaining valid sanction and without consent of the petitioner, commenced raising commercial construction over the said property in violation of the building by-laws and the provisions of the U.P. Urban 1 2026:UHC:1298 Planning and Development Act, 1973. Complaints were submitted before the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA), whereupon proceedings were initiated, show cause notices were issued, and an order for sealing was also passed. The private respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, who by order dated 16.03.2024 directed the Prescribed Authority/SDM, Doiwala to decide the matter within fifteen days. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such direction, the authority has not concluded the proceedings and the alleged illegal construction continues, compelling him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in not deciding the proceedings within the time stipulated by the Commissioner is wholly arbitrary and amounts to abdication of statutory duty. It is argued that once the competent authority had already taken cognizance of the complaint, issued show cause notices under Section 28 of the Act of 1973, and even proceeded to seal the premises, there remained no justification for allowing the matter to linger without final adjudication. The inaction, according to the petitioner, has emboldened the private respondent to continue unauthorized construction in defiance of law. 4. It is further contended that the Commissioner, while deciding the appeal, had categorically directed the Prescribed Authority to conclude the proceedings within fifteen days; however, the said direction has remained uncomplied with. Such non-compliance, it is urged, not only defeats the purpose of the appellate order but also reflects administrative apathy. Learned counsel submits 2 2026:UHC:1298 that the construction in question is admittedly beyond sanctioned limits and contrary to building norms, and therefore the respondents are under a statutory obligation to demolish or seal the same. The petitioner thus prays for a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to forthwith decide the pending proceedings and to take coercive action against the illegal construction in accordance with law. 5. Furthermore, during the course of arguments, it has emerged that the petitioner has failed to establish any clear and enforceable legal right so as to maintain the present writ petition and therefore has no locus standi. Additionally, respondent no.3 has already approached the appropriate authority seeking permission in respect of the construction. In such circumstances, this Court finds no justification to interfere in the present matter. 6. During the course of arguments it transpired that there is already a civil suit pending between the petitioner and the private respondents. The counsel for the petitioner also admitted the same. Since the matter in dispute relates to right of title between the petitioner and private respondent and the matter is already sub-judice in the court of competent jurisdiction this court is not inclined to interfere in the matter under the writ jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 25.02.2026 R.Dang 3