2026:UHC:2040 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.138 of 2024 23rd March, 2026 Yogendra Khanduri ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Neeti Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Devendra Pant, learned S.C. for the State. Mr. Shobhit Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to restore the structure unlawfully demolished by the respondent-Authorities to its original form and to pay the compensation of the damages done over the property of the petitioner as per the prevailing market rate. II. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the State Authority to take necessary action against the unlawful demolition done by the respondent-Authorities. III. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.6 to lodge FIR against the unlawful act done by the official of respondent nos.3 to 5. IV. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.5 to consider the representation dated 04.08.2022 i.e., annexure no.7 of correction of Khet No.466 and 468 within stipulated time in accordance with law. 2. Petitioner’s story in brief is that the petitioner is the lawful co-owner of ancestral property comprising Khata No.0067, specifically Plot Nos.466, 467, 468, and 469, which has been in the family’s lawful possession for over 90 1 2026:UHC:2040 years, with shops constructed by the petitioner’s ancestors and leased to tenants who have continuously paid rent to the family. Among these tenants, Garhwal Motor Owner's Union Ltd. (G.M.O.U.) has operated a ticket counter, waiting area, and branch office on the property since 1944– 45, paying rent solely to the petitioner’s family, with electricity connections reflecting longstanding occupation. In 2022, the State filed cases under Sections 4 and 5 of The U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, against certain tenants, which were challenged as illegal because the petitioner is the lawful owner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Srinagar, canceled the eviction notices and directed Tehsildar to conduct inquiries into the matter, but despite being aware of this fact the respondent- authorities forcefully demolished portions of the property without notice or administrative order. The petitioner also sought correction of records for Plot Nos.466 and 468 from Non-Z.A. land, which remains pending. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent nos.2 and 5 and 3 separately in which respondent nos.2 and 5 submits that the petitioner who is the owner of joint Khata No.0067 only is the owner of Plot Nos.467 and 469 and not of Plot Nos.466 and 468. The name of U.P. Prabhandhak Rajkiya Vahan Vibhag, Nainital, is recorded in respect of Plot Nos.466 and 468 and the petitioner along with his forefathers had illegally obtained the rent from G.M.O.U. and the premises in dispute were demolished because G.M.O.U. had encroached upon the said premises illegally and respondent no.3 submits that initially U.P. Government Roadways was the owner of land bearing Plot Nos.462, 465, 466 and 468 and after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand the name of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation was mutated in the aforesaid plot numbers. He also submitted that encroachment was done in Plot 2 2026:UHC:2040 Nos.466 and 468 by G.M.O.U. which was partially removed by Administrative Authorities. 4. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit reiterated that he is the owner of Plot Nos.466, 467, 468 and 469 as they are inter connected and he along with his forefathers had given the said property in rent to G.M.O.U. and few other tenants since 1943 which can be seen by written admission from G.M.O.U. and electricity connections in their favour. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful co-owner and inherited ancestral property comprising Khata No.0067, specifically Plot Nos.466, 467, 468, and 469, which has been in the family’s lawful possession for over ninety years, with shops constructed by the petitioner’s ancestors and leased to tenants, including Garhwal Motor Owner's Union Ltd. (G.M.O.U.), who have operated a branch office and paid rent solely to the family since 1944–45, as evidenced by longstanding occupancy and electricity connections. In 2022, the State erroneously issued eviction notices under Sections 4 and 5 of the U.P. Public Premises Act, 1972, against the tenants rather than the petitioner, who is the lawful owner, and the petitioner challenged their legality the affect of which was also stayed by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner also sought correction of land records for Plot Nos.466 and 468 from Non-Z.A. land, which remains pending. The respondents although being aware of the stay granted by Sub Divisional Magistrate allegedly demolished portions of the property without notice or authority, and complaints to the authorities have gone unheeded, constituting a claimed violation of the petitioner’s property rights and necessitating intervention by the Court. 3 2026:UHC:2040 5. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record including the relevant land revenue records it is quite clear that the petitioner’s name is shown against only Plot Nos.467 and 469 and not against Plot Nos.466 and 468. The name of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation is shown against Plot Nos.466 and 468. Moreover even if there is a dispute to title it can be only contested in Civil Courts and this Court is not inclined to use its extraordinary jurisdiction enshrined under writ jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue claims through appropriate legal procedures. No order as to costs. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 23.03.2026 SK 4