IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3107 (MS) of 2001 (Old No. 5794 of 1997) Chandra Dutt Pandey …Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others …Respondents Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhuvan Bhatt, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate present for the Lake Development Authority. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhuvan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the Lake Development Authority. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a caretaker of a trust which has certain property, inter lia, at Tallital, Nainital. Regarding the construction or repair relating to the said property, the petitioner moved an application before the development authority wherein certain orders were passed against the petitioner. Against this the petitioner moved an appeal in which certain orders were passed in favour of the petitioner directing the petitioner to continue with certain construction work in the capacity of caretaker of the trust property. Subsequently, the State Government moved a revision against the said order and the revisional court set aside the order of the Commissioner, which was passed in favour of the petitioner and it also remarked that the petitioner is not the owner of the said property. The petitioner aggrieved by certain remarks made by the State government regarding the ownership of the property, inasmuch as the petitioner contends that the suit regarding the title has already been decided in which it has been held that the 2 property belongs to Bachchi Gaur Trust, Tallital, Nainital. 3. Be that as it may, nothing can be said on the merit of the case on this aspect. However, the grounds on which the revision has been allowed by the State cannot be sustained, therefore, the order dated 4.1.1997 is hereby set aside. This is so as the concerned authority has gone into the question of title which it could not go into. At the same time the said authority is fully competent to examine as to whether the disputed construction was valid and whether it was permissible under the law. The matter is therefore remanded again to the State Government, to look into the matter afresh. The State Government shall decide afresh regarding the disputed construction being made on the said property as the said construction comes within the development area under the Lake Development Authority, Nainital. The State Government shall issue notice to the Lake Development Authority as well as to the trust to make sure that the trust is effectively represented before the State Government before any order is passed. The State Government shall decide this matter in accordance with the provision of the Special Area Development Act within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 19.12.2011 VKG