2025:UHC:5877-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA/1021/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. 2. There is no representation for the respondents. . 3. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3158 of 2014, in which the appellant sought the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing the impugned letter dated 19.02.2016 issued by the respondent no. 2, whereby the respondent no. 2 imposed a condition upon the petitioner to construct his house leaving road and Chabutra (Annexed as Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition) ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the name of mandamus commanding / directing the respondents to issue no objection certificate (NOC) to the petitioner in pursuance of applications submitted by the petitioner before the respondents along with proposed map (contained as Annexure No. 6 to this writ petition), so that the petitioner may get approve the map from Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority (HRDA).” 4. Appellant wants to raise a construction over a land, which includes a Chabutra beneath which there is a drain. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Roorkee, District Haridwar, issued a conditional NOC to the appellant granting him permission to raise the 2025:UHC:5877-DB construction, leaving aside the said Chabutra along with the drain beneath it. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the condition imposed in the NOC by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari is unsustainable, as petitioner’s brother was permitted to construct a house, which he did in 2003, and there are other residents in the same locality, who raised construction over the drain, therefore, appellant cannot be singled out for imposing such a condition. 6. Learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment, dismissed appellant’s writ petition on the ground that writ petition involves a disputed question of fact as to whether disputed area (Chabutra) on which the petitioner wants to raise construction is a public passage/nala and such disputed question of fact cannot be looked into in a writ petition. 7. Perusal of the record reveals that earlier also, petitioner filed WPMS No. 1199 of 2018 for the same relief, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge, vide order dated 30.05.2018. Against the said order, appellant filed SPA No. 525 of 2018, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 11.07.2018. 8. While deciding this intra court appeal, this Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact. 2025:UHC:5877-DB Whether the statement made in the NOC that there is a drain lying beneath the Chabutra is correct or not can only be decided by a Civil Court. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned in this appeal. 9. Consequently, Special Appeal fails and is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487d f006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA8 75643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.14 10:19:21 +05'30'