HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3326 of 2025 (M/S) Subhash Singh ….......Petitioner Vs. Commissioner Kumaon Kumaon Mandal Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 to 4. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding or directing the respondents to remove the encroachment of respondent no.5 (Banshi Lal) from the land of petitioner granted on lease, and possession of the aforesaid land be delivered to the petitioner. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding or directing the respondents to realize the fine from the respondent no.5 (Banshi Lal) for illegally occupying the land of petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner. iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv) To, award the cost of petition in favor of petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a landless person. Therefore, the land-in-question was granted to him on lease, on which, the petitioner has constructed a house and some land was vacant, but the respondent no.5, who is real brother of the petitioner has illegally occupied half portion of the land and house of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks directions that the 2 respondent no.5 may be directed to remove his possession from the land-in-dispute and fine may be imposed to him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land was given to the petitioner on lease as the petitioner was a landless person. But, his real brother, the respondent no.5 has illegally occupied some portion of the property. Therefore, he may be dispossessed from the property. It is also submitted that the petitioner has submitted a report to Patwari, who had after inquiry, recommended action against the respondent no.5, but nothing has been done. 4. The dispute which has been raised by the petitioner in writ jurisdiction is purely civil in nature. The petitioner claims possession on his land and house. 5. It is further the claim of the petitioner that he was granted land on lease. Be it as it may, the petitioner claims possession and damages for which purpose public law remedy may not be an answer. The petitioner may seek such remedy, as is permissible under law in the civil court and, if there is some criminal act done by the respondent no.5, he may very well advise to take such recourse in the criminal law, as is permissible. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.12.2025 Sanjay