Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16499 (UTT)

MURSARAT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPPIL/226/2025 · 2025-12-16

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Subhash Upadhyay

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:11223-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 16 December, 2025 Writ Petition (PIL) No.226 of 2025 Mursarat ----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. According to the petitioner, respondent no.6 who is elected Pradhan of Village Ladpur Kalan, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar has dug the public road for laying a new drain without following due process. 2. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.6 not to carry out any construction/excavation for any new drainage on the land khasra no.111 situated in Gram Village Ladpur Kalan (Aht.) District Haridwar, Uttarakhand. 1 2025:UHC:11223-DB ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.1 to 5 to remove the encroachment from the encroached land i.e. Khasra no.111 situated in Gram Village Ladpur Kalan, Ladpur Kalan, Aht., District Haridwar, Uttarakhand.” 3. Learned State Counsel submits that if petitioner had any grievance in the matter, then he could have approached the concerned Authorities by making a representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already made a representation. 4. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned SDM to look into the issue raised by the petitioner in his representation and take decision as per law, after hearing respondent no.6 and other stakeholders, if any, within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. ____________________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 16.12.2025 Rajni 2