Babita vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1472 UK

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1484 of 2023

Babita                                                                          ...Petitioner

                                       Versus


State of Uttarakhand & Others                                              ...Respondents

Present: -   Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Yogesh Pande, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no. 1 & 5.
             Mr. Pankaj Chartuvedi, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 to 4.


                                    Judgment
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

An over head Water Tank ("Tank") is being

constructed in village Mohammadpur Panda, Imli Kheda,

Roorkee, District Haridwar. Petitioner claims that the place,

where the Tank is proposed to be constructed, is not suited

for that purpose and it may have an effect on divesting

certain legal rights of the villagers.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3. According to the petitioner, the Tank is being

constructed at a place, which is non-hygienic and

un-suitable. It is a place where the drainage water of the

villagers is collected for years together. By constructing the

Tank, the water body is being encroached upon, which is not

permissible under law. According to the petition, the villagers

are agreeable to shift the construction of the Tank. The Gram

Sabha has also passed a resolution.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that at the place at which the construction of the Tank is

proposed to be constructed is not suitable for it; the drainage

water of the village is also collected at this place; it cannot be

hygienic.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that, in fact,

the order for the construction was done in the year 2020,

and the site was selected after a joint inspection of the

Tehsildar, Lekhpal and Police officers. The construction has

already been started.

6. Admittedly, according to the petitioner, the land,

at which the Over Head Tank is proposed to be constructed,

is not of as such any use of the villagers. What is being

claimed is that it is a place where the drainage water of the

village is collected.

7. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by

learned State Counsel that an Over Head Tank is being

constructed on pillars. It means the shape of land remains

same. Perhaps it is the best use of it. Therefore, this Court

does not see any reason to make any interference.

Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the

stage of admission itself.

8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.05.2023 Kaushal