High CourtsSingle Bench

Satyawati vs Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 30 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 UK CK 0240

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1420 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 329 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2021 passed by Joint Secretary, Haridwar-Roorkee Development Authority (in short

‘HRDA’). By the said order, petitioner has been asked to remove his encroachment from a street, failing which, it shall be removed at the cost

and expense of the petitioner.

2.

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent/HRDA has produced in Court the reply

submitted by the petitioner in response to the impugned order dated 12.07.2021, which is taken on record. Although in the said reply, date of the order

is mentioned as 15.07.2021, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said reply has been given in response to the impugned order.

3.

Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Competent Authority/Secretary, HRDA has not taken any

decision on petitioner’s reply, which was submitted personally in his Office on 20.07.2021.

4.

From perusal of the reply, it appears that petitioner has claimed title over the subject land, which, according to the respondents, amounts to

encroachment.

5.

In such view of the matter, before demolition the stairs of the petitioner, it would be just and proper, if the Secretary, HRDA considers

petitioner’s reply and takes appropriate decision by passing a speaking order within some stipulated time.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, HRDA to consider petitioner’s reply dated 20.07.2021 and pass

speaking order, in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

It is further provided that petitioner shall be at liberty to submit supplementary reply, if any, within a week.

7.

For a period of eight weeks or till decision is taken, whichever is earlier, status quo shall be maintained qua the disputed staircase.

8.

Let certified copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner by 02.08.2021.