Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 115 (UTT)

Mahendra Bhoj v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-03-08

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs, among others: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.01.2016, passed by the learned District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Case No. 51/01 year 2015-16, ‘Mahendra Bhoj vs. State of Uttarakhand” Passed by respondent no. 2 in relation to gata no. 665/774, however they may take any action in relation in relation to gata no. 665/743, which is not concerned with the petitioner and the residential accommodation of the petitioner may protected, otherwise the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and the same cannot be compensated by any means. (annexure no. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb the peaceful living of the petitioner. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the reconstruction work of the petitioner in his residential house which is about to complete, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and the same cannot be compensated by any means.” 2. The facts giving rise to present writ petition, in a nutshell, are as follows: (i). The petitioner’s forefather constructed a house at ward no. 10, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar and the petitioner was born in the same house. During the rainy season, one wall of the building of the petitioner fell down due to excessive rain and the petitioner along with his family members shifted to his relative’s house and managed some money for reconstruction of the dilapidated wall. (ii) When the petitioner approached the Mason, he suggested for construction of the other three walls also for the future safety of the family of the petitioner and suggested for the demolition of the other walls of the building. (iii) On the suggestion of the mason, the petitioner demolished the other walls of the building and requested the mason to construct the building. (iv) During the construction of the house, respondent no. 4 came on the spot and forcefully stopped the construction work and said that the petitioner cannot construct the building. (iii) On the suggestion of the mason, the petitioner demolished the other walls of the building and requested the mason to construct the building. (iv) During the construction of the house, respondent no. 4 came on the spot and forcefully stopped the construction work and said that the petitioner cannot construct the building. After the aforesaid, the petitioner approached the Office of Tehsildar and applied for the khatauni of the land and found that the land in question is recorded in Abadi. 3. Thus the land in question is admittedly an abadi land and has been recorded as category 6(2) land in the revenue record. The same has been recorded as State property. Nevertheless, anybody can be dispossessed only after taking recourse to law. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of, at the admission stage itself, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, as follows: Neither the petitioner shall be evicted from the land in question nor his existing construction shall be demolished by the respondents except in accordance with due process of law.