Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5513 (UTT)

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/1355/2026 · 2026-05-15

Pankaj Purohit

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3633 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.1355 of 2026 Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Girish Kumar Arya with Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned Counsel for petitioner. 2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned S.C. for the State. 3. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3-MDDA. 3. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioner raised construction at Landhour View Estate, Civil Hospital, Mussoorie, District Dehradun without having any sanctioned map or obtaining permission from the respondent-MDDA. The MDDA took cognizance of illegal and unauthorized construction raised by petitioner. Notice was given to the petitioner on 25.01.2022 to stop the construction. When the construction was not stopped by petitioner, sealing order has been passed by the respondent- MDDA on 10.08.2022. Against the sealing order, petitioner moved appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division which was registered as Appeal No.100/2021-22. The said appeal is still pending wherein record was summoned, and the stay application, filed therein, is also pending disposal. Despite sealing, construction was continuously raised by petitioner. Respondent no.3-MDDA passed demolition order on 20.03.2025. The said order was also put to challenge by petitioner by filing Appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division which was registered as Appeal No.78/2024-25 and the stay application, filed therewith, is also pending. In the said appeal also, records were summoned. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that both the appeals of petitioner are pending and the stay application(s) moved in both the appeals has not been considered so far. 2026:UHC:3633 5. As per the contention of petitioner, respondent no.3- MDDA is pressing hard to demolish the un-authorized/illegal construction raised by petitioner, therefore, petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the notice dated 30.04.2026 issued by respondent no.3 and further to issue a direction to respondent no.3 not to demolish the subject property during pendency of present petition. 6. It is contended by learned Counsel for petitioner that his stay application is pending before the respondent no.2 and the next date fixed is 04.07.2026. 7. In the aforesaid background, this Court feels that till the said appeal is disposed of, some protection can be provided to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Respondent no.2-Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Garhwal Division is directed to decide the stay application of petitioner on the next date fixed i.e. 04.07.2026 strictly in accordance with law and after hearing both the parties. 9. Till then, respondent no.3 shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner, and the petitioner shall file an affidavit within four days from today in the office of respondent no.3 that he will not raise any further construction on the subject property. 10. Let a copy of this order be provided to the parties, today itself, as per rules. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 15.05.2026 R.Dang