IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 356 OF 2006 (MS) Sharad Kr. Sharma, S/o Shri H.N. Sharma, R/o Flat No. 2, Harthorn Willa Compound, Charten Lodge, Mallital Nainital. ………..Petitioner. Versus 1. Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital 2. Nainital Lakes Development Authority, through its Secretary. 3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nainital. ……………...Respondents. Mr. Dharamveer Sharma, sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Manoj Tiwari, Advocated for the petitioner. Sri U.K. Uniyal, sr. advocate, assisted by Sri Sobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. Sri Paresh Tirpathi, Advocate for the respondents no. 1 and 2. Dated: 10.04.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. On 8th April, 2006, an order was passed by which Sri Paresh Tripathi has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 3 and Sri Shobhit Saharia has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 2. Sri Shobhit Saharia has produced the record and has submitted that for deciding the petitioner record may be produced. Similar statement has been made by Sri Paresh Tripathi. Parties therefore, have prayed that the writ petition may be finally decided on the basis of the record produced in the Court. Briefly stated, the dispute relates to a portion of Flat No. 2 in Plot-A of Horthorn Villa, Charlton Lodge Road. The petitioner purchased, the premises namely Flat No. 2 Harthorn Will Compound, Charten Lodge, Mallital, Nainital by way of registered sale deed dated 14th August, 2002 and according to him, after his name was mutated in the municipal record,. He is continuously paying the house tax and other municipal taxes as and when it falls due. The ground for challenge is that prior to the purchasing of the accommodation, the construction was already in existence and intimation was given by the erstwhile landlord to the Lake Development Authority. Thereafter, the assessment had also taken place. The petitioner has further submitted that the construction was made in accordance with the G.O. dated 1st May, 1997 and 29th May, 1997, which were applicable at the relevant time on 1st May 1997 and as such any change in the earlier decision will not affect the construction, which has already been made. Both the G.O.s are quoted below:- G.O. dated 1st May, 1997:- egksn;] uxj ds iqjkus ,oa fufeZr {ks=ksa esa Hkou eku&fp= ds Lohd`fr dh izfd;k dks ljy fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ;klu }kjk fy;k x;k gSa bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs’k gqvk gS fd iqjkus ,oa fufeZr {ks=ksa esa 100 oxZ ehVj rd ds Hkw[k.M ij vkoklh; Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k@iquZfuekZ.k o eg;kstuk o mifu;eksa vkfn ds vuqlkj lsVcSad NksM+s x;s gS rFkk fuekZ.k dqy feykdj 3 eafty ls vf/kd u gksA blh izdkj 100 oxZ ehVj ls vf/kd o 300 oxZ ehVj rd vkoklh; Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k] iquZfuekZ.k ,o th.kksZ/nkj ds fy, Hkh Hkou eku fp= nkf[ky fd;s tkus ij Lor% Lohd`r ekus tk;saxs] fdUrq izfrcU/k ;g gksxk fd vgZ okLrqfon~ }kjk rS;kj Hkou ekufp= ij ;g izek.k i= vafdr fd;k x;k gks fd izLrkfor fuekZ.k@iquZfuekZ.k@eg;kstuk ,oa ckbZykt ds vuqlkj gksA 2& d`i;k mijksDr vkns’kksa dk dM+kbZ ls vuqikyu lqfuf’pr djsA bu funsZ’kksa ds mijkUr izkf/kdj.k dk lacaf/kr deZpkjh 100 oxZ ehVj rd ds Hkw&[k.M ds Hkou fuekZ.k ds laca/k esa ugha tk;sxkA^^ G.O. dated 29th May, 1997 is quoted below:- 2& bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs’k gqvk gS fd ioZrh; {ks=ksa esa xfBr fodkl izkf/kdj.k fo’ks”k {ks= fodkl izkf/kdj.k o mRrjizns’k vkokl ,oa fodkl ifj”kn dh ;kstukvksa esa mijksDr ‘kklukns’kksa esa dh x;kh O;oLFkk ykxw ugha gksxhA ioZrh; {ks=ksa esa fu;kZr ,oa fodkl rFkk HkkSxksfyd ifjfLFkfr;kW fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k muds fy, vyx ls funsZ’k tkjh fd;s tk;saxsaA d`i;k mijksDr vkns’kksa dk vuqikyu lqfuf’pr fd;k tk;sA^^ The petitioner has submitted that the Commissioner while passing the order dated 5th April, 2006 has not considered the implication of the G.O. applicable at the relevant time and thereafter the G.O. was amended by order dated 28th may, 1997 and inspite of the directions given by the Revisional Authority on 4th November, 2000 the order of demolition has been passed without perusing the said G.O.s. I have perused the entire record concerning Flat No. 2 Harthorn Willa Compound. Proceedings for demolition were initiated in respect of 2nd Floor with regard to the construction of one room measuring 4X10 metres X 7 meter and one toilet. Initially the proceedings were started against one Sri Mukul Gupta son of Sir Y.N. Gupta under Section 25 and 26 of the Urban Regulation Builing Operation Act. However, the petitioner has purchased the premises on 14th August, 2002. Sri Paresh Tripathi appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that he has not to submit anything except the record produced by Sri shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. However, the construction according to the petitioner was already complete as will appear from the intimation given by Sri Mukul Gupta on 25.05.1997 to the following effect:- “Sub:- Construction of one room set on roof of my flat No. 2 in Howthorn Villa Charten Lodge Road, Nainital under G.O. No. 1614/9 vk&3.97.38-fofo/k 197 dated 01- 05-1997. Dear Sir, It is to inform you that I have constructed one room set on the roof of my flat no. 2, on a plot area of 110 sq mt., and as per G.O. No. 1614/9 vk -3-97-38- fofo/k 197, no. permission for this construction was required. Now since I have completed the construction, I am informing you about the same for your reference.” The revisional Court has held as under:- “mi;ZDr iqujh{k.k esa fnukad 21-10-2000@2-11-2000 dks cgl lquh x;khA ftlesa iqujh{k.kkFkhZ dk rdZ ;g Fkk fd 01 ebZ 1997 dks m0iz0 ’kklu }kjk 'kklukns’k tkjh fd;k x;k tks leLr v/;{k fo’ks”k {ks= izkf/kdj.k dks fuxZr gS rFkk foi{kh ds ;gka Hkh ykxw gSA foi{kh us ,slk dksbZ izek.k ugha n’kkZ;k fd mDr ’kklukns’k uSuhrky esa izHkkoh ugha gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd mDr fuekZ.k iw.kZ gksus dh lwpuk izkf/kdj.k dks vius i= fnukad 25-5-97 }kjk ns nh FkhA i= dh izfr Hkh layXu dh x;hA uxjikfydk esa fnaukd 01-4-97 o 15-6-97 dks ,lslesaV Hkh gks pqdk gS ftldh izfr;ka Hkh i=koyh ij nh x;h gSa vkxs dgk x;k ebZ 1999 esa Hkkjh o”kkZ ds dkj.k vLFkk;h fVu ‘ksMyhd gks tkus ds dkj.k mlds LFkku ij ubZ fVu ‘ksM izkf/kdj.k dks fnukad 15-5-99 dks lwfpr djrs gq;s Mkyh x;h fdUrq dqN }s”k Hkko j[kus okys O;fDr;ksa dh f’kdk;r ij izkf/kdj.k us iqujh{k.kdrkZ ds fo:} dk;Zokgh dj nh x;hA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd iquZfuekZ.k@th.kksZ}kj fu;eksa esa izfrcaf/kr ugha gSA vr% vk;qDr egksn;k dk vkns’k fof/k ds vuq:Ik ugha gSA vr% mDr vkns’k fujLr fd;s tk;saA^^ In view of the above, the predecessor of the petitioner before coming into force the G.O. dated 29th May, 1997, has already constructed a small room and bathroom and the same was complete and therefore, the G.O. cannot be said to be applicable in the case of the petitioner as the constructions were already in existence. I, therefore, find merit in the submission made by the petitioner. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the orders dated 22.08.2001 and 5th April, 2006 passed by the respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 10.04.2006 Rathour