2026:UHC:1201 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.431 of 2026 24 February, 2026 Kanees Bano Alias Kaneez Bano --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. D.N. Sharma and Ms. Manju Bahuguna, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Suyash Pant and Mr. Devendra Pant, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Notice bearing No.367/vfr0&jhMj/2025-26 dated 30.01.2026 issued by the respondent No.3 in respect of land bearing Khasra No.1832 measuring 0.365 hectare situated at Pandey Khola Shahar, Tehsil & District Almora (Contained as Annexure No.10 of this writ petition). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action including demolition, dispossession or removal of the residential structure of the petitioner standing over land bearing Khasra No.1832 during pendency of the Second Appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act for declaring her Bhumidhar of certain piece of land in dispute in the Court of learned Assistant Collector-First Class, Almora. The said Suit was dismissed by learned Assistant Collector-First Class, Almora vide order dated 09.07.2018. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner went in Appeal before the learned Commissioner Kumaon Devision, Nainital, which was registered as Appeal No.22/2018-19/ 2026:UHC:1201 2 16/2019-20 Kanees Bano @ Kaneez Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. This Appeal also met with the same fate of dismissal vide judgment and order dated 25.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Commisisoner, Kumaon Division, Nainital. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred a Second Appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, which is pending before it. 3. In between, it appears from perusal of the record and as canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner-Kanees Bano was proceeded with issuance of notice under Section 4(1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the P.P. Act’) for eviction from the land which is subject matter of the Second Appeal. Petitioner was evicted, but the Appeal filed against judgment and order passed by learned Prescribed Authority/SDM, Sadar, Almora dated 09.07.2018, was allowed and respondent was directed to initiate fresh proceedings by issuance of notice under Section 4(1) of the P.P. Act. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that no fresh notice was issued under the provisions of the P.P. Act to the petitioner. Petitioner is in imminent threat of being evicted from the land in dispute and notice impugned in present writ petition dated 30.01.2026 to the petitioner deserves to be set aside. 5. In the opinion of this Court, all mess started when petitioner cannot get the interim order in the Second Appeal, which has been filed before learned Board of Revenue and is still pending. Instead of challenging the said impugned notice before this Court, petitioner may file an application for interim order or injunction before learned Board of Revenue in the Second Appeal. 2026:UHC:1201 3 6. In such view of the matter, no interference is required in the present writ petition. Petitioner may seek appropriate remedy in the Second Appeal, which is still pending before learned Board of Revenue. 7. Thus, the present writ petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed in-limine. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.02.2026 PN