Balvir Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1506 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.1562 of 2023

Balvir Singh                                          ....Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                    ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaparuwan,
            Advocates for the petitioner.
            Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Suyash
            Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.
            Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.3.

                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of instant petition, the petitioner

seeks the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Additional Chief Officer/Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchyat Udham Singh Nager, whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the 10 shops and residence building located Khasra No.896/2 belong to Zila Panchayat Udham Singh Nagar within a period of 7 days from receipt of the notice. (As Annexure No.1)

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as prayed vide representation dated 19.05.2023 for grant of lease of the said property within some stipulated time.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the

nature of Mandamus directing the respondents

not to take any coercive measure against the

petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notice

dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Additional Chief

Officer/Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat

Udham Singh Nagar.

(iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the light of fact and circumstances of the case otherwise, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner has been staying in the property for a long;

they had approached for the grant of lease of land, but it has

not been granted. Even he has represented the respondents

authority to give him six months' time to vacate the land in

question.

4. If the respondents authority are removing the

encroachment, this Court cannot make any interference

unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. It is not

immediate danger, which the writ petition is revealing. If the

petitioner has any right over the property, he can very much

avail the remedy under civil law. The relief no.2, as sought by

the petitioner, itself reveals that he is not the owner of the

property. He seeks lease of the property. The petitioner cannot

claim lease as a matter of right.

5. The question of grant of some more time for

vacating the premises in question may be considered by the

respondents authority keeping in view the hardship, if any, of

the petitioner. This Court cannot adjudicate or express any

opinion on this aspect.

6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that

there is no reason to make any interference. The petition

deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself

7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 26.05.2023 Ravi Bisht