Uttarakhand High CourtUnknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 May, 2013Author:Servesh Kumar GuptaBench:Servesh Kumar GuptaIN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                         CLMA No. 5176 of 2013
                         CLMA No. 5177 of 2013
                                    In
                    Writ Petition (PIL) No. 49 of 2012
IN RE
In the matter of conservation of Ecology
and Environment conditions of Kedarnath Temple               ......Petitioner.
                                 Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others                               ...Respondents.
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advcote, Special Officer appointed by the Court.
Mr. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Advocate General with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 and 2.


Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C. J.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.Application filed by the learned Special Officer be
handed over to the learned Advocate General.2.            We permit intervention by Mr. Keshav Tiwari. It shall
be open to Mr. Tiwari to file affidavits in the PIL.               We are,
however, not impressed by the Application made by him seeking a
direction upon the Authorities concerned not to remove
encroachments.       It is the case of the applicant that he is a
Bhumidhar and, accordingly, has private ownership over a plot of
land situate at Kedarnath. He has submitted that on that private
land, he has made a construction. He has contended that since no
law is applicable pertaining to the constructions, made or to be
made at Kedarnath, the construction made by him on his land is
also not otherwise contrary to any building rules or regulations. It
is his contention that a notice has been given by the SDM by
pasting on trees, electricity posts and other places indicating that
within seven days' time, encroachments will be removed by him.
Being apprehensive that in the matter of removing encroachments,
the house of the applicant will be touched, the present Applications
have been filed. It has further been contended that the steps taken
are contrary to the orders passed by this Court on this writ petition.
We think that in the event, applicant's construction is on his own2land, he need not be worried about the threat meted out in the
notices referred by him pertaining to removal of encroachments, as
one cannot be an encroacher of his own land. The Applications
are, accordingly, disposed of.(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)     (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
                28.05.2013                 28.05.2013
Rathour