2025:UHC:10994 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PMS/ 3 4 4 0 / 2 0 2 5 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Shiv Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State. 2. Petitioner claims to be trusty of a property situate at Rishikesh. According to him, District Administration is in the process of demolishing a shop, which is part of trust property. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondentno.2 herein to stop demolition of the petitioners premise which is a shop situated at Lakshman Jhulla, Sri Ram Khrokha Mandir, Lakshman Jhulla, Tapovan District Tehri Garhwal (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to not interfere with the peaceful running of the shop situated at Lakshman Jhulla, Sri Ram Jhrokha Mandir Lakshman Jhulla, Tapovan, District Tehri Garhwal. (c) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to restore the shop of the Petitioner to its original status.” 3. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, learned State Counsel on instruction, submits that the shop which petitioner claims to be trust property, is in fact, standing over Government land. He submits that Government needs the land for widening of the passage which leads to under construction Bajrang Setu at Rishikesh. 4. He submits that due to bottleneck caused by the shop, egress and ingress to Bajrang Setu 2025:UHC:10994 is difficult and a decision was taken at the highest level to remove all bottlenecks to clear the passage to the Setu. 5. He further submits that petitioner consented before SDM, Rishikesh that he will remove the shop which is constructed over Government land and is causing bottleneck. He further submits that District Administration is ready to adequately compensate the petitioner and the amount payable as compensation was also determined, but the same could not be released to him as he had not supplied necessary documents, including bank account number. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes the said submission made on behalf of the State Counsel and submits that petitioner never consented for removal of encroachment. 7. The writ petition cannot be decided without going into the question, whether petitioner has encroached upon government land or not, and such questions cannot be decided in writ proceedings. 8. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to SDM, Rishikesh to issue a notice to the petitioner within 48 hours, indicating the extent of encroachment, made by him upon government land. Petitioner shall give reply to the notice 2025:UHC:10994 within 10 days of its receipt. 9. The SDM, Rishikesh shall, thereafter, consider the reply and record finding, regarding encroachment, if any, made by petitioner and also pass orders, for removal of such encroachment, within 3 days thereafter. 10. For a period of two weeks or till decision is taken by SDM, whichever is earlier, status quo, qua the shop belonging to petitioner be maintained. 11. However, if petitioner fails to submit reply to the notice within stipulated time, then the competent authority shall be free to proceed in the matter, as per law and petitioner will not be entitled to any protection of this order. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself, as per rule. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.12.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.12.10 17:33:47 +05'30'