2025:UHC:448 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No. 3387 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession over the land in question. Along with his suit, petitioner also filed a temporary injunction application. Temporary injunction application was rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 12.09.2023. Petitioner challenged the order passed by trial court in miscellaneous appeal. His appeal has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide judgment dated 05.11.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Perusal of the judgment and order passed by trial court and appellate court reveals that both the learned courts below have considered all the relevant aspects, including prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury. From perusal of impugned orders, it is revealed that State Public Works Department is proposing to construct a road for which all the villagers have given their consent and petitioner alone is opposing construction of road, therefore, he had filed a suit for permanent injunction so that road may 2025:UHC:448 not be constructed. 5. Learned State Counsel refers to doctrine of eminent domain and submits that State Government can acquire the land of any private individual for a public purpose, though State Government will have to pay compensation for the land so acquired. Thus, he submits that learned courts below were justified in not granting a temporary injunction in favour of petitioner for stalling the road project, which is very necessary for the residents of the remote village. 6. Having regard to the finding recorded by learned trial court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Even otherwise also, temporary injunction is a discretionary relief. Both the learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings, which cannot be interfered with, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 10.01.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1 369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F46 10C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.01.11 14:18:37 +05'30' 2025:UHC:448