2025:UHC:8153 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2668/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of "Mandamus" directing the respondents to unlock the rooms of the petitioner, which have been sealed under the order of respondents no. 3 & 4, situated in Khasra No. 12508 of Khata No. 00040, situated at Village Balna, Patwari Area- Pant Kotuli, Patti Walna, Athagulli, Tehsil Ranikhet District Almora. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of "Mandamus" directing the respondents not to cause any hindrance in the peaceful use and possession of the petitioner with regard to two rooms constructed on khasra number No. 12508 of Khata No. 00040, situated at Village Balna, Patwari Area- Pant Kotuli, Patti Walna, Athagulli, Tehsil Ranikhet District Almora III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of "Mandamus" commanding the respondents to handover the household goods of the petitioner, to the petitioner, which are mentioned in para no. 10 of the writ petition. IV. To issue a writ order or direction in the name of mandamus directing the respondents not to alienate or create any third party interest in the property mentioned at khasra number No. 12508 of Khata No. 00040, situated at Village Balna, Patwari Area- Pant Kotuli, Patti Walna, Athagulli, Tehsil Ranikhet District Almora.” 3. Learned State Counsel has referred to Annexure-3 to the writ petition, which is a representation, made by petitioner to the Joint Magistrate, Ranikhet. In that, petitioner has 2025:UHC:8153 admitted that she is residing in Panchayat Ghar, which has been sealed by the authorities. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon certain revenue records to show that petitioner is the tenure holder in respect of the land over which the house in question is standing. He thus submits that petitioner is the owner of the house. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that there is no evidence that the house in question is standing over the same land. He further submits that disputed question of title cannot be decided in a writ petition and petitioner has the remedy to approach a competent Civil or Revenue Court. 6. This Court finds substance in the said submission made by learned State Counsel. 7. Question of title over the land/building cannot be decided in a writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the competent court of law. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 12.09.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b089 23c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4 BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.09.12 19:29:43 +05'30'