Disposed¶¶6

Nirmala Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Jul 2026WPMS/2054/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Premature writ petition; notice under Section 27(1) of Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 dated 30.10.2025; Uttarakhand Nagar Evam Gram Niyojan Tatha Vikas Adhiniyam, 1973; District Level Development Authority, Haldwani; demolition/sealing/dispossession restraint sought; reply submitted to notice; liberty to raise contentions before competent authority; WPMS/2054/2026; Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.; 08.07.2026; 2026:UHC:5532.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the competent authority under the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973; the competent authority to consider her submissions and take an appropriate decision as per law as early as possible. No interim restraint against demolition/sealing was granted at this stage. ¶¶6

Nirmala Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the adverse proceedings and notices initiated under the Uttarakhand Nagar Evam Gram Niyojan Tatha Vikas Adhiniyam, 1973 (notice under Section 27(1) dated 30.10.2025) should be quashed and the respondents restrained from demolishing, sealing or dispossessing the petitioner. +1 more

¶¶3

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is premature at this stage, as no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by continuation of proceedings, no order against her interest having been passed as yet.

¶¶6

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the competent authority under the aforesaid Act.ratio¶¶6
The competent authority shall consider the submissions made by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision, as per law, as early as possible.ratio¶¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPMS/2054/2026), High Court of Uttarakhand (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.), decided 08.07.2026 — Petitioner challenged adverse proceedings and notices initiated under the Uttarakhand Nagar Evam Gram Niyojan Tatha Vikas Adhiniyam, 1973, specifically a notice issued on 30.10.2025 under Section 27(1) of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973, and sought restraint against demolition, sealing or dispossession. Proceedings were pending before the Joint Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Haldwani, and no adverse order had been passed. Held: the writ petition was premature as no prejudice was caused by continuation of proceedings; disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the competent authority, which was directed to consider her submissions and decide as per law as early as possible.

¶1

UKHC010117462026

¶2

2026:UHC:5532

¶3

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPMS/2054/2026
			Nirmala Joshi --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
			Mr. Pankaj Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.
			2. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent no.1. 3. Ms. Ananya Jain, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
			4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition for quashing the impugned adverse proceedings and notices initiated under the Uttarakhand Nagar Evam Gram Niyojan Tatha Vikas Adhiniyam, 1973. (contained as Annexure no.3 page no.19 to 22 to this writ petition). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for restraining the respondents from demolishing, sealing, dispossessing the petitioner from or otherwise interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession over the property in question. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in light of the fact that the structure is an old existing structure and that only repair work was being undertaken. iv) Issue a writ, order or direction for expeditious proceedings as the petitioner livelihood is affecting adversely.”

¶4

UKHC010117462026

¶5

2026:UHC:5532

¶6

5. Perusal of the record reveals that a
notice under Section 27 (1) of Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 was issued to petitioner, on 30.10.2025 and petitioner has submitted reply to the said notice. The proceedings are on against petitioner before Joint Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Haldwani. No order against the interest of petitioner has been passed as yet.
6. Learned counsel for respondents are right in submitting that the writ petition is premature at this stage, as no prejudice is caused to petitioner by continuation of proceedings.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioner to raise all contentions before the competent authority under the aforesaid Act. The competent authority shall consider the submissions made by petitioner and take appropriate decision, as per law, as early as possible. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.07.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86D AAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.07.09 10:10:01 +05'30'

Nirmala Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Joshi 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bsv Inter College Vs District Magistrate/Collector

Hanung Toys and Textiles Ltd. Vs Sushil Kumar

Hanung Toys and Textiles Ltd. Sikandarpur Bhainswal Vs Munnu Singh

Renu Bhandari Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yashwant Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Narendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand