[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Savita Devi vs District Magistrate Nainital And ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 3319 of 2025 (M/S)
Savita Devi ..........Petitioner
Vs.
District Magistrate Nainital and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for respondent no.4.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad,
Ramnagar, District Nainital to handover peaceful physical
possession of the plots no. 181, 182, 183 and 198, Mohalla
Khattari, Ramnagar, Nainital, purchased by the petitioner's
deceased husband in the public auction dated 31.07.1974, in
accordance with law.
b. Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to remove
unauthorized occupants/encroachers, from the plots no.181, 182,
183, 198 Mohalla Khattari, Ramnagar, Nainital and restore
possession to the petitioner as the lawful legal heir of the original
auction purchaser.
c. Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to decide
the pending representations/complaints of the petitioner & her
family within a time-bound period.
d. Issue a writ, order or direction declaring that the auction/inaction
of the respondent-Nagar Palika in not handing over possession
despite acknowledging the plots in the name of the petitioner's
husband in RTI replies is arbitrary and illegal.
e. To pass any other/further suitable order which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
f. Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had
purchased the land-in-question by way of a public auction dated
30.07.1974, but thereafter, certain persons had illegally encroached
her land. Now, petitioner claims that she should be given the
possession of the land which have been encroached by some
individuals. The petitioner also seeks directions to the respondents
to remove the unauthorized encroachers from the land. There are
other related reliefs also.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from
learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how the writ petition is
maintainable? The petitioner claims herself the owner of the land
which has been encroached by some persons. The petitioner can
very well seek the relief of possession from the civil court. This is a
private law remedy. How could it be enforced in a public law
jurisdiction? At it, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner has already given a representation on
03.11.2025 to the District Magistrate, Nainital, which is Annexure
No.8 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate, Nainital may be
directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a
stipulated time.
5. It is outright case of the petitioner that her husband was
given land in a public auction in the year 1974, on which, some
individuals have made encroachment. In fact, this is what has been
stated by the petitioner in Annexure No.1 (power of attorney) as well as
Annexure No.4 (a communication made by the petitioner in the
year 1990). Such claims for possession of an individual cannot be
entertained in this jurisdiction. During the course of hearing,
learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there are
some disputes with regard to the lease also, for which, a
representation has been given. Therefore, the representation needs
to be decided.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the
representation of the petitioner may be decided within a period of
six weeks.
7. The Court takes on record the statement made by the
learned State Counsel.
8. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to
the respondent no.1/the District Magistrate to take a decision on
the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks
from today.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
04.12.2025
Sanjay
