Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7728 (UTT)

NIRMALA RAGHUBIR SHARMA v. UTTARAKHAND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

WPMS/1967/2026 · 2026-07-07

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010110862026 2026:UHC:5457 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1967/2026 Nirmala Raghubir Sharma --Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Housing And Urban Development Authority --Respondents Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Yogesh Pant (through V.C.), Mr. Harshi Gupta and Ms. Ankita Baluni, Advocates for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. According to petitioner, respondent no. 3 has constructed a four storied house next to that of the petitioner. It is alleged that the said house was constructed in absolute disregard of the building byelaws as well as the sanctioned house plan, therefore, a demolition order was passed by competent authority under provisions of Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973. It is alleged that despite the demolition order, unauthorized portion of the building is not being demolished. 4. Learned counsel for MDDA was asked to get instructions. Today, on instructions, Mr. Rahul Consul makes a statement that against the demolition order, respondent no. 3 filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal, vide order dated 27.06.2026 UKHC010110862026 2026:UHC:5457 granting fifteen days further time to respondent no. 3 to demolish the non- compoundable portion. He points out that fifteen days time given by Appellate Authority is going to expire on 16.07.2026. He thus submits that before expiry of the time given by Appellate Authority, demolition cannot be carried out by the MDDA. Mr. Rahul Consul further points out that respondent no. 3 has remedy of revision also and unless, the demolition order passed against him is upheld by all the authorities, the work of demolition cannot be undertaken. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of by permitting the Secretary, MDDA to take necessary action in the matter, once the demolition order attains finality. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 07.07.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.07.07 17:59:40 +05'30'