Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 58 (UTT)

RUKMANI DEVI v. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT

2013-02-25

Sudhanshu Dhulia

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Puja Banga, Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner had applied for sanction of a map for construction of commercial building which was refused by the Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “MDDA”) on 5.9.2009. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order dated 5.9.2009. The preliminary objection has been raised by the MDDA in its courter affidavit saying that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 15(5) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Section 15(5) of the Act reads as under:- “15. Application for permission. 1… 2… 3… 4… 5. Any person aggrieved by an order under Sub-section (4) may appeal to the [Chairman] against that order within thirty days from the communication thereof and may after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and, if necessary, also to the representative of the [Vice- Chairman] either dismiss the appeal or direct the [Chairman] to grant the permission applied for with such modifications, or subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified.” 3. It is admitted fact that the area where the petitioner sought sanction of the map for construction of a building lies within the developed area which is MDDA and no construction in the developed area can be made without sanction of the map by the MDDA. Under the power vested with the MDDA such a map has to be considered under Section 15(3) of the Act where in case the details have been provided, such details have to be sought from the applicant and thereafter in case map is to be rejected reasons must be assigned in the order. The place where the sanction of the map has been sought by the petitioner is earmarked as a Bus Stand/ Parking Space and therefore map of the petitioner cannot be sanctioned. According to the petitioner, the land of the petitioner has never been acquired and therefore such an order is absolutely wrong. 4. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that under Section 15(5) of the Act the petitioner admittedly has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Chairman, MDDA. According to the petitioner, the land of the petitioner has never been acquired and therefore such an order is absolutely wrong. 4. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that under Section 15(5) of the Act the petitioner admittedly has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Chairman, MDDA. The petitioner must avail his remedy by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. The same shall be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner is at liberty to apprise the appellate authority that the land has never been acquired and that the contention of the MDDA that it is earmarked for Bus Stand/ Parking space is wrong. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. 5. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 6. No order as to costs.