HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3319 of 2025 (M/S) Savita Devi ….......Petitioner Vs. District Magistrate Nainital and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for respondent no.4. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar, District Nainital to handover peaceful physical possession of the plots no. 181, 182, 183 and 198, Mohalla Khattari, Ramnagar, Nainital, purchased by the petitioner’s deceased husband in the public auction dated 31.07.1974, in accordance with law. b. Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to remove unauthorized occupants/encroachers, from the plots no.181, 182, 183, 198 Mohalla Khattari, Ramnagar, Nainital and restore possession to the petitioner as the lawful legal heir of the original auction purchaser. c. Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to decide the pending representations/complaints of the petitioner & her family within a time-bound period. d. Issue a writ, order or direction declaring that the auction/inaction of the respondent-Nagar Palika in not handing over possession despite acknowledging the plots in the name of the petitioner’s husband in RTI replies is arbitrary and illegal. e. To pass any other/further suitable order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. f. Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner. 2 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had purchased the land-in-question by way of a public auction dated 30.07.1974, but thereafter, certain persons had illegally encroached her land. Now, petitioner claims that she should be given the possession of the land which have been encroached by some individuals. The petitioner also seeks directions to the respondents to remove the unauthorized encroachers from the land. There are other related reliefs also. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how the writ petition is maintainable? The petitioner claims herself the owner of the land which has been encroached by some persons. The petitioner can very well seek the relief of possession from the civil court. This is a private law remedy. How could it be enforced in a public law jurisdiction? At it, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already given a representation on 03.11.2025 to the District Magistrate, Nainital, which is Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate, Nainital may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time. 5. It is outright case of the petitioner that her husband was given land in a public auction in the year 1974, on which, some individuals have made encroachment. In fact, this is what has been stated by the petitioner in Annexure No.1 (power of attorney) as well as Annexure No.4 (a communication made by the petitioner in the 3 year 1990). Such claims for possession of an individual cannot be entertained in this jurisdiction. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there are some disputes with regard to the lease also, for which, a representation has been given. Therefore, the representation needs to be decided. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the representation of the petitioner may be decided within a period of six weeks. 7. The Court takes on record the statement made by the learned State Counsel. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent no.1/the District Magistrate to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.12.2025 Sanjay