IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 936 (M/S) of 2011 Shubdha Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M. Raturi, the learned standing counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Rahul Consul, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to relieve from the Master Plan for the period 2005-2025, property of the petitioner depicted in Master Plan 2005-2025 as Bus Stand/Parking and Thela Stand. (b) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take forcible possession of the property in question from the petitioner, without adopting the procedure laid down under Land Acquisition Act and U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. (c) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) To award cost of the petition to the petitioner.” The contention of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property and the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority has prepared a Master Plan for the period 2005-2025, in which the property of the petitioner has been depicted to be used as a Bus Stand or for Parking purposes. The petitioner has rushed to this Court contending that 2 based on the Master Plan prepared under Section 8 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the respondents may take immediate possession of the land in question without taking recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is patently erroneous. In the event, the land is required for the development purposes by the authority concerned, the authority is required to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1973, which contemplates compulsory acquisition of the land for the purpose of development. Consequently, the apprehension of the petitioner that the possession of the petitioner’s land would be taken by the respondents without taking recourse to the acquisition proceedings, is patently erroneous. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 18-05-2011 Salim/