DINESH CHANDRA SINGH RAWAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dtd. 1/3/2023, 12/7/2023, and 28/10/2024 passed respectively by the Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Nainital; the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital; and the Joint Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority, Dehradun. The petitioners further seek a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Nainital to sanction the building map of the petitioner's residential premises, ignoring the applicability of the Government Order dtd. 1/5/2015, as all statutory formalities stood completed much prior thereto.

(2.) Petitioner purchased a plot measuring 81.78 sq. meters situated at Ashdale Compound, Sukhatal Region, Nainital, through a registered sale deed dtd. 16/1/2006. Mutation was effected on 7/9/2007, and municipal taxes have been regularly paid thereafter. The petitioner applied for sanction of the building map well before 2015. A report dtd. 31/3/2008 submitted by the District Development Authority categorically recorded that the land in question lies above the submerged area of Sukhatal and that several residential constructions already existed in the vicinity, whose maps had been sanctioned prior to 1995. Subsequent deliberations culminated in a decision permitting construction subject to NOCs and maintaining a prescribed distance above the water level. The petitioner duly obtained No Objection Certificates from all concerned departments, including Geology, Town Planning, Nagar Palika Parishad, and Forest Department, and deposited the requisite fees as demanded. The Junior Engineer, vide report dtd. 19/4/2014, confirmed completion of all formalities and forwarded the proposal for sanction. Thus, the petitioner's case had reached a conclusive stage prior to issuance of the Government Order dtd. 1/5/2015.

(3.) It is stated that the respondents rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that the land allegedly falls within 30 meters of Sukhatal Lake and is hit by the Master Plan, 2015. This stand is misconceived and unsustainable, for the following reasons: (i) No final demarcation of Sukhatal Lake boundaries exists till date, and no authenticated map has been produced to establish that the petitioner's land falls within the prohibited zone; (ii) The Government Order dtd. 1/5/2015 and the Master Plan, 2015 cannot operate retrospectively, particularly where the petitioner had already completed all statutory formalities and acquired a vested right for consideration under the then prevailing regime; (iii) The respondents have failed to rebut the admitted position that similarly situated residential buildings adjacent to the petitioner's land have already been sanctioned and exist on record, thereby rendering the action discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (iv) The revisional authority has ignored its own binding precedent dtd. 29/9/2023 passed in Revision No. 672 of 2023, wherein in identical circumstances, the matter was remanded after holding that completion of formalities prior to 2015 and absence of demarcation disentitled the authority from rejecting the claim outright.