IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 926 of 2008 (M/S) S. S. Bisht and another …… Petitioners Versus Naveen Porwal and others …… Respondents …….. Mr. V.K.Kohli, Senior Counsel with Mr. I.P.Kohli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. After hearing the detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the judgment dated 20.05.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal as well as the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court, I find that whereas the learned Trial Court was correct and justified in declining to grant any temporary injunction in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners herein, the learned District Judge completely misdirected himself in the impugned order dated 20.05.2008 by granting the temporary injunction in favour of the respondents. Even though the suit is pending disposal and I do not wish to make detailed observations, I must hasten to add that a bare look at the plaint does suggest that no issue with respect of the status of the defendants in the suit or status of the property in question arose and yet the learned District Judge brought in the question of the defendants’ property being a trust property. This was never a dispute raised by the plaintiffs in the suit. This apart, the defendants in the written statement had clearly mentioned that the property on which the construction was being raised was in the ownership of M/s S. N. Forestry Ltd. and M/s S. N. Forestry Ltd. was not made party defendant in the suit. More important than anything else, the only prayer in the plaint was to restrain the defendants from carrying out any construction activity over the property in question except in accordance 2 with and based upon a duly sanctioned building plan from the Haridwar Development Authority. I must also hasten to add that in the suit it was no contention of the plaintiffs that they had any concern with the property in question whereupon the construction was being raised by the defendants or that the defendants were trying to encroach upon or forcibly occupying the property belonging to the plaintiffs or any part of it. The impugned order accordingly deserves to be set aside and is set aside. One aspect however which cannot be lost sight of at this stage is that the petitioners-defendants cannot be permitted to raise any construction over the property in question without the due sanction of a valid building plan by the Haridwar Development Authority. They also cannot be allowed to raise any construction in violation of any law, bye-laws, rules and regulations. I must lay stress on the words “due sanction” and “valid building plan”. If the construction is being carried out in the absence of a due sanction of a valid building plan, or if it is being carried out in violation of any law, such a construction will be illegal and in such an eventuality the law has to take its own course and the Haridwar Development Authority is under a binding statutory obligation not only to stop illegal construction, but also to take steps for its demolition. Therefore, to ensure that the law is not violated, I permit the plaintiffs- respondents to approach the Haridwar Development Authority within one week from today bringing to its notice all the relevant facts. Upon receipt of such representation, the Secretary of Haridwar Development Authority is hereby directed by this Court to ensure that he, accompanied by other competent officers, personally visits the site in question and records his satisfaction about the aforesaid aspects viz. whether the construction is being carried out in accordance with and based upon a due sanction of a valid building plan. He must do so within ten days from the date of receipt of the representation from the respondents. If he finds that any illegality is being committed in the light of the aforesaid observations about the construction activity, he shall pass immediate orders and take immediate 3 action for stopping construction and also, in accordance with procedure prescribed under law, take steps for its demolition. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 19.09.2008 A