Dayanand Shiksha Santhan U.P. vs Chief Administrator Uttarakhand Housing Urban Development Authority Dehradun & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard &

decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of WPMS No. 778 of 2019 are being considered.

Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, whereby petitioner’s application, for recall of the

house plan sanctioned in favour of private respondent, was rejected. He has also challenged the order dated 17.02.2018 passed by Revisional

Authority i.e. Additional Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing & Urban Development Authority, whereby his Revision Petition was also

dismissed.

Petitioner had asserted his title in his recall application. His application was that he is the owner of the land, over which house plan was sanctioned

in favour of private respondent. The Secretary, M.D.D.A. rejected the recall application, by holding that question of title cannot be gone into under the

provisions of Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973 and the housing plan sanctioned in favour of private respondent

cannot be recalled, till a decree is passed by competent Civil Court, declaring the sale deed as null and void.

The order passed by the Secretary was challenged by the petitioner, by filing revision under Section 41 (3) of U.P. Urban Planning and Regulation

Act, 1973, which was registered as Revision No. 391 of 2014. The Additional Chief Administrator of Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development

Authority rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner, by holding that the question of title over the land in question cannot be gone into in

proceeding under the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this

Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This Court concurs with the view taken by Additional Chief Administrator of Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority. Proceedings

under the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973 are initiated for any violation of the provisions of the said Act.

Question of title over the land over which construction is raised, cannot be gone into in such proceedings and such issue can be raised only before a

competent civil or revenue Court, as the case may be.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of Section 37-A (1) of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act,

1973, as inserted by an amendment made by the State of Uttarakhand in the year 2013, the civil Court is barred to entertain any suit or proceedings in

respect of any matter, the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by aforesaid Act. Therefore, according to

him, the Additional Chief Administrator of Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority was not justified in rejecting petitioner’s

revision petition on the ground that the matter is cognizable by a civil Court.

The submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. The question, whether private respondent has title over the land over

which he raised construction, cannot be adjudicated by an authority under the provisions of the aforesaid Act (Uttarakhand Urban and Country

Planning & Development Act, 1973). The jurisdiction of a civil Court is barred only in respect of such matters, cognizance whereof can be taken by

any authority under the provisions of aforesaid Act.

Since the question of title cannot be decided by any authority under the provisions of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development

Act, 1973, therefore, learned Additional Chief Administrator of Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority was justified in rejecting

petitioner’s revision petition.

Furthermore, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority is creature of Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning & Development Act, 1973.

The scope of enquiry, under the provisions of the said Act, is limited to the extent of enforcement of Building Bye-Laws and Zonal Regulations.

This Court finds no infirmity in the view taken by Secretary, M.D.D.A., as affirmed by the Revisional Authority.

In such view of the matter, no interference would be warranted with the impugned orders.

Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed.