HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1704 of 2025 (M/S) Dan Singh ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Rajesh Joshi and Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Devendra Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 24.05.2025, passed by the respondent no.3/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the SDM”). By it, the petitioner has been restrained to interfere in the land in dispute. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is recorded tenure holder of plot no.405, in village Sujia, Pragana Bilhari, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. The respondent no.4, Kripal Singh, has only 0.026 hectare in plot no.405, but he is illegally trying to occupy the land of which the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder. For this purpose, the petitioner has filed Original Suit No.23 of 2025, Dan Singh Vs. Kripal Singh, in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the suit”), in which temporary injunction application is still pending, but, in the meanwhile, the respondent no.4/Kripal Singh had moved an application to the SDM, who, after ex-parte enquiry, directed police that the petitioner be restrained to interfere in the land in dispute. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the SDM cannot pass such order; it is beyond jurisdiction. 2 5. The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel as to under what provision of law, the restrain order has been passed by the SDM? He submits that this order is administrative because it has been passed on an application of the respondent no.4/Kripal Singh. He also submits that, in fact, the respondent no.4/Kripal Singh has already raised a boundary wall on some portion of the plot no.405. 6. During the course of hearing, learned State Counsel has also tendered an application of the respondent no.4/Kripal Singh, submitted to the SDM, in which simply it was stated that the petitioner and others are forcibly trying to grab his property. Let it be taken on record. 7. For such relief, the respondent no.4 could have approached the civil court. This is a civil dispute between the parties. The impugned order has not been passed under any provision for preventing breach of peace either. This order could only be passed by the civil court. Even learned State Counsel could not indicate as to under what provision of law such order could be passed. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. The impugned order dated 24.05.2025 is set aside. The Court makes it clear that setting aside of the impugned order does not give any right to the petitioner. The suit is pending, in which, according to the petitioner, he has moved a temporary injunction application. The rights of the parties will be decided in the suit. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 21.07.2025 Ravi Bisht