2025:UHC:2887-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 699 of 2017 22 April, 2025 Chhatrapal …Appellant Versus District Magistrate & Another …Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- None for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Bohra, Standing Counsel, for the State. -------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Appellant/petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 11.8.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 1976 of 2017, which is extracted below: “Petitioner has challenged the notice dated 03.08.2017 issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the petitioner has been asked to remove his unauthorized possession from the Government land. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that he is in possession of the land in question for more than twenty years and a school is also being run on the said land. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, as the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy to approach the Civil Court or the Revenue Court, as the case might be. 2025:UHC:2887-DB 2 Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed in limine.” 2. The notice dated 3.8.2017, impugned by the appellant in his writ petition, is enclosed as Annexure- 3 to the writ petition. It was issued by the Tehsildar, Kichha stating that appellant has unauthorisedly occupied government land by constructing a house and he was asked to remove his possession from the land, in question, within eight days, failing which he shall be dispossessed by use of force at his cost and expenses. 3. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner cannot be effectively resolved in a writ petition and the appropriate remedy would be to approach the Civil Court, where question of title can be gone into. 4. The view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. In fact, it is well settled that public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for resolution of private property disputes, which can only be decided by Civil Court, based on evidence. Thus there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 22.4.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e 61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB 588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.04.30 17:10:28 +05'30'