UKHC010115982026 2026:UHC:6258-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY July 23, 2026 Special Appeal No.299 of 2026 Rameshwari Chauhan & Another ----Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Mr. Aayush Gaur and Mr. Siddhant Manral, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C. J.) Delay Condonation Application IA No.1/2026 1. The appeal is beyond time by 43 days. The delay has been sufficiently explained. Accordingly, delay is condoned. Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the instant appeal. SPA No.299/2026 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the order of learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2026 in a batch of writ petitions including WPMS No.952/2026 filed by the appellants, wherein they had 1 UKHC010115982026 2026:UHC:6258-DB challenged a show cause notice dated 28.03.2026 issued by the SDM, Haldwani, requiring the appellants to show cause as to why an area measuring 10mt x 5mt = 50 sq.mts near PNB Bank, Bareilly Road Branch be not demolished. The appellants were granted 15 days’ time to remove the encroachment, failing which the same would be removed by the authorities and the expenditure incurred in this regard would be recovered from the appellants. 4. Learned Single Judge, after seeking response from the State Counsel, wherefrom it transpired that the objections filed by the appellants were still under consideration, disposed of the writ petition holding it to be premature. 5. After the writ petition was disposed of, the appellants prayed for recall/modification of the order of learned Single Judge but the said application has also been dismissed by an order dated 01.07.2026. 6. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the respondents have not yet passed any order on basis of the impugned show cause notice and the reply submitted by the appellants, but still they are threatening to demolish the constructions. 2 UKHC010115982026 2026:UHC:6258-DB 7. Learned State Counsel submits that the respondents would not carry out demolition till the inquiry is pending and a decision is taken considering the reply submitted by the appellants. 8. In view of the aforesaid stand, the present appeal is disposed of by providing that the respondents would not demolish the constructions of the appellants, until decision is taken in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice and the explanation furnished by the appellants. Accordingly, the order of learned Single Judge would stand modified to the above extent. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 23.07.2026 Rajni 3