HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1292 of 2025 (M/S) Sandeep and Another ….......Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:- I. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.2 to Surrender the Possession of the Land of Khata Khatauni No.83 Khasra No.3122/3124/3107/3128/3179/3180/31 56/3157/3158/3146 and 3149 situated at Village- Triyuginarayan Sonprayag, Tehsil – Ukhimath, District – Rudraprayag alongwith the Mesne Profits. II. Issue any other direction or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. 2 III. Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents-authorities are encroaching upon their land. Earlier, when they tried to do so, the petitioners had filed WPMS No. 1255 of 2024, which was decided by this Court on 12.11.2024, directing the authorities to demarcate the land. He would submit that though the land has been demarcated, but still, the respondents-authorities are encroaching upon their land. 4. Learned State Counsel was required to get instructions in the matter. Today, learned State Counsel, under instructions, would submit that the respondents- authorities are not encroaching upon any part of the land of the petitioners. He submits that the respondents- authorities are not demolishing any kind of construction on any land pertaining to the petitioners. 5. It is a disputed question of facts. The petitioners claim that the respondent-State Authorities are encroaching upon his land, whereas, the respondent- State Authorities would submit that the land of the 3 petitioners is not being encroached for any purpose, whatsoever, by the respondent-State Authorities. 6. The petitioners have a remedy. It is personal civil right of the petitioners, which can be ventilated before the appropriate forum. In the writ jurisdiction, these disputed questions of fact, particularly, when there are allegations of encroachment, may not be entertained. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. When these lines were dictated, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners may be permitted to seek liberty to ventilate their grievances before the Civil Court seeking appropriate remedy. 9. The petitioners are always free to avail such remedy, as is permissible under law. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 16.05.2025 Ravi Bisht