HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 692 of 2006 (M/S) (Old No. 25349/1993) Smt. Satya Devi. ……..Petitioner Versus Special Secretary, Awas Anubhag-3 A nd others. …….Respondents Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1, Ms. Pooja Banga, Advocate for respondent no.2, Mr. Lalit Sammant, Advocate for respondent no.3. Dated: July 14, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.07.1993, passed by respondent no.1 (annexure no.11) and order dated 26.03.1991 passed by respondent no.2 (annexure no. 9) as far as it relates to restriction of closing the door of toilet. 3. Briefly stated that the petitioner is the owner in possession of House No. 100/60, Old Dalanwala, Dehradun. Respondent no.3 is his neighbour, who wanted to encroach some portion of roof of the petitioner’s house. The petitioner instituted O.S. No. 343 of 1988 before the Court of Munsif, Dehradun. On receipt of a show cause notice dated 03.01.1991 from respondent no.2, the petitioner replied the same annexing a map therewith. The controversy was merely with regard to new construction of a kitchen and toilet for which the petitioner was ready to deposit compounding charge and 2 he also filed an application. On 26.03.1991 the respondent no.2 passed an order in which it was mentioned that the petitioner shall not be allowed to have a door in the toilet towards the land of respondent no.3 and a condition was imposed that if she closes the door of toilet, then a sum of Rs. 2,230/- shall be charged as compounding charges. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision u/s 15-A of U.P. Regulation of Building Operation Act, 1958 before respondent no.1 but instead of giving any relief, the respondent no.1 ordered for demolition of the kitchen and toilet as well as boundary wall of the petitioner. Hence this petition. 4. The respondent no. 1 filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner intends to approbate and probate i.e. to take advantage of the compounding on one hand and secondly wanted to score over the respondent no.3 for opening of the door when already a civil suit is pending besides the rights of the parties. It is further stated that the petitioner was heard in the matter, but he could not satisfy that the compounding order of respondent no.2 was not incorrect and therefore, the order dated 08.07.1993 is not liable to be interfered and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The respondent no.3 also filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the respondent no.3 has no intention to encroach upon any portion of roof of the petitioner, contrary to it the petitioner has broken drain pipe of the building in question and is not permitting the respondent no.3 to carry out repair works. It is stated that the O.S. 3 No. 343 of 1988 filed by the petitioner in the Court below has been dismissed on 17.09.1996 for want of prosecution. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties are agreed and prayed that instant writ petition may be disposed of by directing the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun/ respondent no.2 to decide the case of the petitioner, afresh, in accordance with law. 7. Consequently, the MDDA/respondent no.2 is directed to decide the petitioner’s case afresh, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 8. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed finally with no order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) 14.07.2010 NCM: