HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1639 of 2025 (M/S) Paramjit Kaur ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure No.7) passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, District Udham Singh Nagar, as same has been passed without following due process of law, and in an arbitrary manner. (b) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authority not to construct the cowshed in Khasra no.240 without actual physical verification on the land and without adopting due process of law. (c) Pass any other and further order which this has deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is owner-in-possession of a plot no.240/9, Village Haldi, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. The respondents are constructing a cowshed over the land in question without any authority. 4. Learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner had given a representation pursuant to the directions given by this Court in WPMS No. 684 of 2025, Paramjit Kaur Vs. Stae of Uttarakhand and Others, but that representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 13.05.2025. He would also submit that, in fact, the construction is not being raised on the property in question. 2 Instead, it is being raised in plot no.240 /11. State is raising construction on its own property. 5. The petitioner claims the land in question as his own land and claims that the construction is being raised by the respondents on his land. In the impugned order, it is recorded that, in fact, the construction is being raised in plot no.240/11, which is recorded in the name of State, and the petitioner wants to grab that property under the garb of his own property at plot no.240/9. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed Civil Suit No. 15 of 2025, Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Uttarakhand, in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, in which on 27.05.2025, an interim injunction has already been granted. 6. There is a dispute with regard to the land on which the construction is being raised. According to the petitioner, it is being raised on plot no.240/9, whereas, according to the respondent-State, it is being raised on plot no.240/11. As stated, admittedly, the petitioner had already filed a civil suit, in which interim injunction has already been granted. In view of it, this Court cannot decide as to on which plot, the construction is being raised. It is an issue, which is pending in a civil suit between the parties. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will file an application under Section 41 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for demarcation of the property. 9. The petitioner is always free to take such recourse, as is permissible under law. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 18.06.2025 Ravi Bisht 3