ABL PROJECTS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the Vice Chairman, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority/respondent No. 4 (as contained in Annexure -1 to the writ petition), order dated 07.03.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun/respondent No. 3 (as contained in Annexure -2 to the writ petition) and order dated 03.03.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun (as contained in Annexure -3 to the petition).

(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm and the present petition is being filed by one of the partners of the firm, who is authorized to file this petition on behalf of the petitioner as per resolution dated 17.03.2015. The petitioner is the bhumidhar/owner of the land having total area 4.223 hectares, a detailed description of which has been given in para 3 of the writ petition. Initially, the land (details of which are mentioned in para 3 of the petition) was purchased by a firm, namely, B.D. Agarwal Project, with which there were co -applicants, namely, Aadesh Gupta, M/s. Dehra Colds Reiterates Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Pal Singh, Mohit Yuvraj, Ranveer Singh Rawat, Rajendra Singh Rawat, Kaushalya Devi and others (hereinafter referred to as promoters of Panache Valley), who were also bhumidhars of other pieces of land, together planned to develop a habitat neighbours duly recognized under building byelaws (hereinafter referred to as Panache Valley), and got a plan layout sanctioned from the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as MDDA). Subsequently, the petitioner got the name of the firm changed from B.D. Agarwal Project to ABL Projects.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT to the Layout Plan having been sanctioned as mentioned above, the petitioner and other co -applicants developed their lands as per sanctioned Layout Plan and made huge investments. In order to get the Layout Plan sanctioned, the petitioner had already mortgaged some of the plots of the Project with the concerned respondent, as per the requirement of the building byelaws.