HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. District Level Development Authority, Nainital and others

Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that in Agenda No.16.12 of the Board Meeting held on 26.03.2022, within 30 Meters of the lake, even repairing is not permissible.

17. This argument is against the permission that was granted by the authority to the petitioner on 30.03.2024. The petitioner has been granted permission by the authority to carry out repair works. 7

18. Now, there are two things. It has not been shown that the petitioner was raising the wall, which in any manner, materially affect the external appearance of the building. Therefore, in the instant case, the provisions of Section 52(a) of the Act come into play and accordingly, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. Even otherwise, for the repair works, the petitioner has already been granted permission by the respondents.

19. In the instant matter, pursuant to order dated 30.04.2025 of the Court, the authority has filed a compliance affidavit and also filed certain photographs alongwith it in Annexure 4. In page 28 of this compliance affidavit, there are two photographs. During the course of hearing, as such, arguments were not made on those photographs. Therefore, matter was further heard on 14.07.2025. The Court invited attention of learned counsel for the petitioner to the bottom photograph at Page 28 of the compliance affidavit of the authority, which shows that a steel frame has been fixed in the parking area and on the right side of it provision of door has been made. If the parking area is closed and door opened, it will definitely change the external appearance of the building. For closing the parking area the petitioner has not sought any permission. It is not even the case of the respondent that the parking are of the building has been closed.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner immediately admitted that the parking area in the ground floor of the building shall remain as such and steel frame shall be removed.

21. The Court takes on record this statement. 8

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed subject to certain direction.

24. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.05.2024 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to de-seal the property and permit the petitioner to carry out the repair works in accordance with to the permission granted to her on 30.03.2024 by the authority.

25. Before de-sealing the building, the respondent authority shall ensure that the green colour steel frame placed by the petitioner in the ground floor parking area of the building with provision of the door (as shown in the bottom photograph of the compliance affidavit dated 20.05.2025 of the respondent no.1 authority, at Page 28) is removed and the parking area is restored to its original position. (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

17.07.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686 df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC45 0A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA