HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1764of 2025 (M/S) Shri Ashok Kumar ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Utarakhand and others ……....... Respondents Present : Mr. Shivam Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks directions that possession of the petitioner be protected over Khasra No.92, measuring 0.4920 hectare, situated in Village Mohammad Baigpur alias Takabri, Pargana Roorkee, Tehsil and District Haridwar (“disputed land”). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. With regard to the disputed land, in fact, the petitioner and two other persons had filed, Original Suit No.212 of 2017, Sunil Kumar and others vs. Raju and others, in the court of First Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar (“the suit”) for permanent and mandatory injunction. The suit has been dismissed. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner wants to prefer an appeal, but due to civil court’s vacation, they are unable to do so. Hence, the possession may be protected. 5. Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil) 1957, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, provides for hearing of the urgent matters during vacation and gazette holidays. The petitioner may 2 be advised to take recourse of it. There is no reason to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 6. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.06.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd5046 86df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC 450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.06.26 14:14:21 +05'30'