20 February vs District Magistrate & Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1313 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

20 February vs District Magistrate & Others on 20 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                            2026:UHC:1128
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
       Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 401 of 2026
                        20 February, 2026


Shakuntala Devi

                                                             --Petitioner
                                Versus

District Magistrate & others
                                                         --Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shivam Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. along with Mr. Suyash
Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to forthwith enforce and ensure strict compliance of the SDM's order dated 13.11.2025 (annexure-08) thereby stopping all construction activitiy and maintaining status quo over Khasra No.372.

(ii) Direct the respondent authorities to take immediate steps to remove the obstruction created by the private respondent over the petitioner's ancestral passage and ensure free and peaceful access to her residence.

(iii) Restrain the private respondent from carrying on any unauthorized commercial activity, including running a hotel/guest house, in the disputed joint property without lawful registration or sanction.

(iv) Direct the respondent authorities, particularly the District Tourism Officer, Uttarkashi, to duly consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 05.01.2026 (annexure no.11) wherein the petitioner objected to issuance of any tourism registration certificate in favour of the private respondent in respect of the disputed joint property, and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law."

2. From perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it transpires that there is a dispute between the private parties in respect of ancestral property. The respondent-SDM, Barkot, vide order dated 13.11.2025,

2026:UHC:1128 directed the parties to avail an appropriate civil remedy in respect of their dispute. Till such time as the parties seek redressal from the Civil Court, they were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the construction activities being carried out by respondent no. 7.

3. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking execution of the said order. In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the SDM is only administrative in nature, intended to prevent a breach of peace between the parties. Therefore, the parties should file a civil suit in respect of their respective claims concerning the property.

4. In view of the above, no interference is required in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine.

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

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.02.2026 AK