POOJA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Paresh Tripahti, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarkhand/respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Rajeev Bisht, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to intrude into the property in peaceful possession of the petitioners; to cause impartial enquiry against those officers responsible for this arbitrary and illegal act of trespass; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish the property at Plot No. 154/A, Neshvilla Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun.

(3.) The encroachment removal drive was undertaken at Dehradun pursuant to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(PIL) No. 47 of 2013 dated 18.06.2018, the contents of which we shall refer to a little later in this order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench, the jurisdiction of this Supreme Court was invoked in SLP diary No. 24083 of 2018 dated 18.06.2018; and, as a result, the directions issued by the High Court were modified by the Supreme Court in part. A notice was issued on 05.07.2018 calling upon the petitioner's mother to remove the encroachment on or before 06.07.2018 at 8:00 A.M. i.e. a notice of 24 hours. The petitioners claim to have replied to the show cause notice on 05.07.2018 contending that the subject construction was raised after due approval from the Development Authority. However, an exercise of demolition was undertaken on 13.07.2018, questioning which the writ jurisdiction of this Court was invoked.