DEHRADUN: A boundary wall demolished during an anti-encroachment drive in Dehradun was pulled down illegally and in defiance of a Supreme Court order, a tribunal has ruled, directing the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) to pay the property owners Rs 5 lakh in compensation with interest.
District Judge and Tribunal presiding officer Harish Kumar Goel delivered the ruling on Thursday in a case brought by three sisters, Pooja, Pinky and Poonam Singh, whose family property is on Neshvilla Road in Dehradun.
He declared the demolition “illegal, null and void” and said the authorities had acted in “direct contempt and willful defiance” of the apex court's directions.
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Yogesh Sethi, said their family had owned the 0.13-acre plot since a registered sale deed was executed in 1969, with the building map sanctioned in 1970.
Their boundary wall was demolished on July 13, 2018, by an anti-encroachment task force accompanied by police and earthmoving equipment. The operation was led by then Mussoorie sub-divisional magistrate Meenakshi Patwal and then city magistrate Manuj Goyal.
At the time, authorities were carrying out a wider demolition drive following directions from the Uttarakhand High Court. The tribunal, however, noted that the Supreme Court had subsequently modified those directions.
For existing structures, the competent authority was required to issue an individual notice, allow time for a reply and pass a reasoned decision before taking action. The structure was to remain untouched until that process was completed. A shorter notice period applied only to fresh encroachments.
Instead, MDDA served a notice in the name of the sisters' mother, Satya Devi, who had died in 2005. Calling the notice a “legal nullity”, the tribunal said it was vague and failed to identify the alleged encroachment through measurements or demarcation. It also found that no inspection had been conducted in the owners' presence.
MDDA and the officers denied wrongdoing.
They said a public notice had been issued, teams formed and the alleged encroachment recorded and verified in the field.
The officers maintained that they had acted in good faith while carrying out their official duties. They also challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction and raised procedural objections.
MDDA, through counsel Amit Jain, and the officers, through DGC Rajeev Acharya, argued that the action was not taken under Section 26-A but in execution of binding High Court directions in the PIL.
Rejecting those arguments, the tribunal held that the High Court's general directions did not displace the legal safeguards governing the removal of encroachments. It described the demolition as high-handed and said the owners had been denied an opportunity to be heard.
Of the Rs 5 lakh compensation awarded, Rs 4.5 lakh is for rebuilding the wall and Rs 50,000 for mental distress and litigation costs.
MDDA must deposit the amount within 30 days, along with simple interest at 6% a year calculated from the date of demolition until payment.