SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 2025:UHC:1050 WPMS No.480 of 2025 Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel, for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel, for the State/1 and 2. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel, for the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5. 4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, and to pay compensation according to the norms settled by the respondents for actual damage caused to the cowshed building, fruit trees and harvest of the petitioner. 5. The facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a recorded occupant of Khatoni No.36, Khasara No.108 area 00.16 hectare of Village Jushou, Budola Khet Sheli Tehsil Kalsi, District Dehradun. Over the said land, the petitioner was having a double storey cowshed and the residential house. In the year 2014, the “Makti - Kakoyi Marg” which is of 13 kilometers, was constructed, which allegedly caused damage to the property of the petitioner. The petitioner moved an undated representation, which was received in the office of the respondent/Executive Engineer, P.M.G.S.Y. Kalsi, District Dehradun 22.05.2015, and subsequently on 16.08.2017, wherein, the petitioner has requested the respondent authorities to repair the private canal of the petitioner, which according to him, was damaged in the construction of the aforesaid road. 6. Apart from that one Annexure i.e. Annexure no.3, is also annexed with the writ petition, wherein, in affidavit dated 22.05.2015, it has been stated that on the construction of the aforesaid road, the double storey cowshed and the residential house of the petitioner was completely destroyed. 7. Firstly from the pleadings, it is not clear as to what actual damage was caused to the petitioner by the construction of the said road. Secondly, the cause espouses through the writ petition is a stale one and highly time barred. It is a settled principle of law, if some relief cannot be given in a particular manner, which cannot be pleaded and get it in another manner. 8. In this view of the matter, this Court finds nothing in the present writ petition to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.02.2025 NR/