SUSHIL KUMAR v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE UDHAM SINGH NAGAR
WPMS/1396/2026 · 2026-05-19
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5529 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5529 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:UHC:3862 SL. No . Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
W PMS/ 1 3 9 6 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
Mr. M.K. Ray and Mr. Harsh Taneja, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3-University. 4. Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel for respondent no.4-NHAI. 5. Petitioners are challenging separate notices issued to them by the Estate Officer, Farm, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology on 10.04.2026. By these notices, petitioners were asked to remove their encroachment from the land belonging to the University within fifteen days, failing which it shall be removed at the cost and expense of the petitioners. Petitioners were further called upon to produce any document/ evidence in support of their claim of title over the land in-question, on or before 30.04.2026. 6. According to petitioners, they submitted reply to the notices, enclosing therewith the documentary evidence to prove that they have a valid claim to continue in possession over the land in question. 7. The grievance raised by petitioners is that competent authority has not considered the reply submitted by petitioners so far, and now threat of dispossession is looming large over their heads. 8. Learned counsel for the University, however, submits that petitioners are rank trespassers, and they do not have semblance of any right to enter into the land
2026:UHC:3862 in-question. 9. Be that as it may, since petitioners were called upon to prove their title and they have responded to the notices by submitting reply enclosing therewith all supporting documents, therefore, it is incumbent upon the Competent Authority to examine the reply submitted by petitioners before dispossessing them from the land in-question. 10. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing respondent no.3, (Estate Officer, Farm, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology), to consider the reply/ representation submitted by petitioners and pass a reasoned order, as per law, within six weeks from today. For a period of six weeks, or till a decision is taken in the matter by respondent no. 3, whichever is later, status quo as regards possession over the land in question shall be maintained. 11.
Learned counsel for the University undertakes to communicate this order to Estate Officer (Farm), G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, during the course of the day. ( Man oj Kum ar Tiw ar i, J.)
19.05.2026 AK
2026:UHC:3862