HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2565 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 49526 of 1999) Swarg Ashram Trust. …Petitioner Versus The Haridwar Development Authority And others. …Respondents. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Dated: August 20, 2011: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. None appears for respondent no.3 inspite of sufficient service. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 31.01.1996 and 26.10.1999 passed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 respectively, whereby the petitioner is asked to demolish the boundary wall constructed by him, without prior permission of the respondents. 3. It is asserted in the petition that petitioner’s society is registered under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1964, which is known as Swarg Ashram Society. In village Jonk, District Pauri Garhwal itself in Khasra plot no. 305 there is a mango grove, having about 50 mango trees and other fruit trees. The Ashram is the Bhumidhar of the said plot. In order to protect and preserve the fruit tries, the petitioner constructed boundary wall around the side of mango grove, which is in plot no. 305 of village Jonk. This construction was started in the year 1995 and a boundary wall, on 4,000 running 2 feet, has been constructed, which is only 5’ in height and about 1½’ in width. It is asserted that Haridwar Development Authority, which was created in the year 1987 under the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1937, had no master plan pertaining to village Jonk whereas it claims that the said area is also governed by the master plan of the Development Authority. It is stated that there is no requirement to seek prior approval from the said Development Authority for construction of a boundary wall. It is further asserted that on the complaint of respondent no.3, proceeding was initiated by respondent no. 1, and petitioner was served with notices from said Development Authority. The petitioner also furnished No Objection Certificate issued by Public Works Department and Forest Department. It is further asserted that petitioner has made full compliance of the notice dated 21.09.1995, and the entire procedure as required by respondent no.1 were complied with by the petitioner, but the respondent no.1 vide impugned order dated 31.01.1996 issued direction that the boundary wall constructed by the petitioner on plot no. 305 is in violation of Section 14 of the Act, hence order for its demolition was issued. Against the said order dated 31.01.1996, the petitioner moved an appeal before the Chairman of the said Development Authority, which was also dismissed on 26.10.1999. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2. However, respondent no.3 rescinding the assertions made in the petition, filed his counter affidavit. 5. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government issued a Govt. Order on 6th March, 1996, whereby it was provided that 3 no house map is required to be sanctioned from the concerned Development Authority in respect of a boundary wall to be constructed on one’s own property upto the height of 1.5 metres. He submitted that boundary wall constructed by the petitioner is upto the height of five feet, which is not more than 1.5 metres and in view of the Govt. Order dated 6th March, 1996, the impugned orders dated 31.01.1996 and 26.10.1999 passed by respondents deserve to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Puja Banga, the learned counsel for the Development Authority submitted that since the boundary wall was constructed by the petitioner before 06.03.1996, i.e. the date of issuance of the said Govt. Order, therefore, the petitioner cannot avail benefit of the same. She submitted that the construction in question is illegal and the petitioner cannot take shelter of such Govt. Order, without its having retrospective effect. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in directing the petitioner to demolish the boundary wall of 1.5 metre height and again permitting him to raise new boundary wall. This exercise will certainly be futile. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 31.01.1996 and 26.10.1999 passed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 are set-aside. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) 20.08.2011 NCM: