Khadag Dhwaj Bhandari K.D. Bhandari Vs State of Uttarakhand

4. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2025 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.3287 of 2025, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with liberty to approach the competent court of law but in

¶20

1

¶21

2026:UHC:748-DB

¶22

paragraph-9, the Court has noted the statement of Mr. Rahul Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the M.D.D.A., that he assure that deviation from the sanctioned house plan, if any, shall be examined by the competent authority.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, till date, the alleged deviation has not been examined by the competent authority.

¶24

6. Today, Mr. Rahul Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the M.D.D.A. submits that he has no idea as to whether the matter has been examined or not. Learned counsel for the M.D.D.A. further states before the Court that the M.D.D.A. shall examine the matter at the earliest, preferably within a period of three weeks, as at present he is not in a position to state whether any such exercise has been undertaken or not.

¶25

7. List this case on 10.02.2026.

¶26

8. On that day, respondent–M.D.D.A. shall make a positive statement before this Court as to what has been examined, whether there is any deviation from the sanctioned plan, and if so, what action has been taken in the matter.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the MDDA, on instructions, states that the sealing order has been given effect to by sealing the offending constructions on 13.01.2026. In this regard, a communication dated 09.01.2026 requesting Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun to ensure availability of adequate police force to carry out the sealing, has also been placed before us. Some photographs showing that the premises was sealed have

¶28

2

¶29

2026:UHC:748-DB

¶30

also been placed before us.

¶31

Shri Rahul Consul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of MDDA states that the Development Authority would now be initiating proceedings for demolition of the offending constructions.

¶32

His statement is, accordingly, noted and the

¶33

MDDA shall ensure that the proceedings, as may be undertaken against the private respondent, in respect of the offending constructions are taken to their logical conclusion, after due notice to the said respondent.

¶34

In view of the above, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶35

Pending applications, if any, also stand

¶36

disposed of accordingly.

¶37

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)

¶38

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)

¶39

Dated: 10.02.2026

¶40

Rajni

¶41

Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, RAJINI 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f 17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222 GUSAIN B4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2026.02.11 10:32:23 +05'30'

¶42

3

Khadag Dhwaj Bhandari K.D. Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khadag Dhwaj Bhandari K.D. Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Mewari Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ms Action Construction Equipment Limited Vs State Tax Officer

Vinay Anand Bourai Vs State of Uttarakhand

Champa Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Union of India Vs Kaushalya Negi Alias Sona Devi

State of Uttarakhand Vs Ishwari Dutt Joshi