8 April vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 2831 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

8 April vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 8 April, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2026:UHC:2476



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
      Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3768 of 2025
                          08 April, 2026
Gurdit Singh & another

                                                       --Petitioners
                        Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another

                                                     --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd.
Matlub, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (appeared
through V.C.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the property in question, bearing Shop Nos. R.R. 25 to 28, situated at Main Market, Kashipur, Bypass Road, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar.

2. It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that they are in possession of the aforesaid shops, which were initially owned by the Government of India and were subsequently sold by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, through public auction to Smt. Shanti Kumar, Shri Ram Nath Das, and Shri Hakam Singh, vide sale certificates dated 30.09.1957, 17.05.1962, and 21.12.1967, respectively. The impugned notices were issued by respondent no. 2, Nagar Nigam, under the authority of its Chief Executive Officer.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the petitioners have only been issued notices to produce

2026:UHC:2476 documents regarding ownership and title of the aforesaid shops. Therefore, the writ petition is premature, and instead of approaching the authorities with the relevant documents, the petitioners have directly approached this Court.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the documents pertaining to ownership/entitlement of the shops have already been submitted to respondent no. 2 along with an application (Annexure-14 to the writ petition), which was served upon respondent no. 2 on 18.09.2025.

5. Since the documents relating to ownership/entitlement of the shops have already been filed by the petitioners before respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 shall examine the same and take an appropriate decision within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders in the matter.

6. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.04.2026 AK