2026:UHC:1893 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 620 of 2026 19 March, 2026 Mahendra Singh --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to respondent nos.1 to 5 to complete the execution proceedings as per the orders passed by executing court of Assistant/Collector, 1st Class, Mussoriee, District Dehradun for handing over the possession of the land, according to the Naksha Kurra prepared in Case No.5 of 2004-2005, Sau Singh vs. Khusiram & others, with the assistance of the police. 2. During the arguments, it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in execution of the final decree dated 24.07.2006, possession has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier also filed a writ petition being WPMS No. 1112 of 2021 with a similar prayer, in which a direction was issued to hand over possession of the land to the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid decree. In the said writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the Court of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, to ensure execution of the decree dated 24.07.2006 in a time-bound manner, which resulted into filing of Contempt Petition No.461 of 2021 when, according to the petitioner, the order was not 2026:UHC:1893 2 complied with. Subsequently, the contempt petition was closed on 02.12.2021 on the instructions given by learned Standing Counsel that the execution had been decided, and all the co-tenure holders had been given possession as per their sanctioned share. 3. The writ petition has been filed again by the petitioner, stating that the co-sharer tenure holders are not permitting him to carry out agricultural activities on the share granted to him, possession of which has also been given to him. This appears to be an inter se dispute between the petitioner and private respondent nos. 6 to 9. 4. The remedy falls under the private law remedies available to the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable, and the same is dismissed in limine. 5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.03.2026 AK 2026:UHC:1893 3