2025:UHC:910-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J. HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J WRIT PETITION (M/S) No.1696 of 2022 Alok Mishra …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner Counsel for State : : Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, learned counsel. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Addl. CSC JUDGMENT : (per HON’BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J.) The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for the following relief (s):- “1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14-07-2022 by which the petitioner has requested for not digging the adjoining land, to the Bhumidhari land of the petitioner for construction of Talab from which the agricultural land of the petitioner is in danger, without adopting the safety measurements. (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before digging the adjoining land to the bhumidhari land to the petitioner so that suitable safety measures could be adopted prior to digging the alleged Talab land. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to adopt the pick and choose policy in digging the Talab land as some portion of the alleged Talab is being digged out, however the major portion of the alleged Talab is not being touched, else the 1 2025:UHC:910-DB petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and the same cannot be compensated by any means. iv) Pass such further orders or directions which are just and proper in the facts of the case.” 2. We have perused the photographs, and the pleadings. It is the case of the petitioner that his land is ‘bhumidhari land’, and the respondents are putting a construction next to his land, and the said construction is likely to cause destruction to his land. The photographs produced by the petitioner reveal that the alleged construction is nothing, but a restoration of the pond. 3. Per contra learned counsel for the State would submit that this Court, has in a PIL directed the State to restore the lakes and water bodies. The encroachments in the pond area were removed and a proper pond is being constructed, and that he would submit that there is no cause for concern nor is there any damage caused to the land of the petitioner. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that these photographs also clearly depict a picture contrary to the 2 2025:UHC:910-DB narration being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In that view of the matter, in the event the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open for him to make a representation to the concerned District Magistrate, and in the event, the D.M. is of the opinion that any damage has been caused to the land, the same shall be estimated and, accordingly, appropriate damages shall be paid to the petitioner. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. G. NARENDAR, C.J. ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt:13th February, 2025 NR/ 3