SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1877/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Shiv Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. G.D. Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 4. 3. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondent no. 5. 4. Petitioner has challenged a notice issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haldwani on 28.05.2025. By the said notice, he was asked to show cause as to why the land under occupation of the petitioner be vested in the State, as it is ‘Category-4’ land belonging to the State. 5. According to petitioner, he purchased the land in question by a registered sale deed and his name was also mutated in revenue records vide order dated 28.08.2003. He further submits that it is a Bhumidhari land over which he has raised construction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner made a representation to the District Magistrate in 2019 and had also enclosed all supporting documents, therefore, the notice issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate to the petitioner is bad in the eyes of law. 7. This Court is not impressed by the said submission. Merely because petitioner has approached some higher authority will not be a valid ground for not giving reply to the notice issued by the competent authority. Pendency of petitioner’s representation before District Magistrate will not automatically take away the competence of the SDM to examine the legality of possession of the petitioner over the land in question. 8. Thus, this Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is premature. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that petitioner has submitted reply to the impugned notice, after filing of the writ petition. 10. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haldwani to take decision in the matter, after considering reply of the petitioner, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. For a period of three months or till decision is taken in the matter, whichever is earlier, status quo qua the structure raised by petitioner, shall be maintained. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 19.08.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487 df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA 875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.08.21 10:39:03 +05'30'