Uttarakhand High Court
Pankaj Pal vs Nagar Nigam on 20 February, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 544 of 2025 (M/S)
Pankaj Pal ..........Petitioner
Vs.
Nagar Nigam, Dehradun and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Joshi and Mr. Shobhit Joshi, Advocates for respondent
no.1.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
A writ petition bearing WPMS No.1635 of 2024
("the first writ petition") was filed in this Court seeking
directions for removal of encroachment that has been
done by the petitioner on public land. The first writ
petition was decided on 08.07.2024 and the court passed
the following order:-
"Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with
liberty to petitioner to make representation to
Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Dehradun,
within ten days from today. If such representation is
made within the stipulated period, the Municipal
Commissioner shall call for a report from the concerned
authorities and take decision, as per law, within six
weeks. It goes without saying that respondent no.4
shall also be given notice before taking any decision in
the matter."
2. A review petition was filed in the first petition.
At the time of hearing of the review petition, on behalf of
the respondent no.1, a statement was given that pursuant
to the order dated 08.07.2024, passed in the first petition,
the decision has already been taken on 15.10.2024 by the
respondent no.1, Nagar Nigam, Dehradun. Accordingly,
the review petition was dismissed. However, the Court
made it clear that the order that has been passed by the
respondent no.1 may be challenged in a separate
proceeding.
3. It may be noted that pursuant to the order
dated 08.07.2024, an inspection was carried out by the
respondent no.1 and it was found that some
encroachment was done by the petitioner; the
construction was demolished and a proceedings under
the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was also initiated.
4. Now, petitioner challenges the proceeding dated
15.10.2024 of the respondent no.1, by which,
construction that has been raised by the petitioner was
removed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that a suit has already been filed by the petitioner
with regard to his land. He had purchased the land-in-
dispute by a valid sale-deed. Even in the civil suit,
respondent no.1, Nagar Nigam is a party. Demolition has
been done despite pendency of the civil suit.
7. The first petition was filed with the averment
that the petitioner has encroached on the public land.
The Court, on 08.07.2024, directed the respondent no.1
to take necessary action in the matter. Accordingly, a
joint inspection was done and it was found that the
petitioner had encroached on a portion of public land,
which was demolished.
8. Admittedly, there had been no stay of any civil
court in the matter, in which, the respondent no.1 is also
a party. This Court cannot go into the factual aspects
now. As to what was the measurement at the spot? How
much property, the petitioner had purchased? As to
whether, he had encroached any land? And; if so, as to
what extent?; etc.
9. The petitioner admitted that he had already
filed a civil suit on the same issue. Therefore, the
petitioner may very well seek appropriate remedy in the
civil case with regard to any action that has been taken
by the respondent no.1, if law so permits. Accordingly,
this Court is of the view that no interfere is warranted in
the instant matter.
10. With the above observation, the petition stands
disposed of.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
20.02.2025
Sanjay
