2026:UHC:2465 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 1722 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Gaurav Kandpal and Mr. Anas Ali (through V.C.) learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. M.C. Pant and Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 4. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners Shamshad Ali and Smt. Batulan, are praying for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to ensure protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and that of property of the petitioners and that no harm is caused to the petitioners and property of the petitioners at the hands of respondent no. 5 and 6. 5. In this petition, the S.S.P. Dehradun, S.H.O. Ranipokhri, the District Magistrate Dehradun and the Sub Divisional Magistrate are arrayed as the officials respondents and the respondent no. 5 and 6 are the individuals namely Naresh Sharma and Gopi Chandra Mittal. It is contended by the petitioners that there is regular threat from the respondent no. 5 and 6 in respect of their life and liberty including the property in which the petitioners are in possession since last 70 years. 2026:UHC:2465 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner approached to the police authority but no action was taken for their protection and on 10.12.2025, the respondent no.5 trespassed over the land with JCB machine and resumed demolition activities and this is nothing but an attempt to grab the property in which the petitioners are in possession since last 70 years. He submits that a written complaint was made to the District Magistrate on 11.12.2025 but nothing was done and thereafter the respondent no.6 Mr. Gopi Chandra Mittal along with many antisocial elements visited the petitioners house and extended life threats which was reported on 15.12.2025 which is annexed as Annexure No.3. 7. It is further contended that the Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Thano also issued a legal heir certificate wherein the petitioners have been shown the legal heir of late Fakira, the grandfather of the petitioner no.2 from which it reveals that the petitioners and their ancestors were residing over the land since last several years. In para-9 it is contended that name of late Fakira, the grandfather of petitioner no.2 was duly recorded in the revenue records, which establishes the possession. Certain coloured photographs of the property are also enclosed in order to demonstrate that the private respondents herein dispossess them in an unauthorised manner. He submits that despite the repeated complaints to the official respondents, no action was taken which shows that there is complete inaction on their part. Annexure-5 which is appended along with a petition is the relevant khatauni wherein the name of Fakira, the grandfather of the petitioner is shown in respect of the land falling in Khasra No. 148ka. Page 27 is 2026:UHC:2465 the another extract of the Khatauni and land falling in Khasra No. 148 kha is shown as Abadi though the Fakira name is recorded in Khasra No. 148 ka. 8. Prima facie from these two revenue records, it is reveals that Khasra No. 148 ka and Khasra No. 148 kha are two distinct Khasras relating to different piece of land. 9. The respondent no.5 filed his counter affidavit wherein in para -4 it is contended that he is the owner of the dilapidated house which is located at village Thano falling in Khata No. 37 of Khasra No. 148 kha and after the death of his father he became the absolute owner of the said house which was constructed by his forefather. It is further contended that the private respondent are also the owner of the agricultural land in Khata No. 31 of Khasra No. 137 ka. In para-6 it is further contended that respondent no.5 is residing at Dehradun and this dilapidated house which is parental house is located at village Thano and on 18.10.2025, he has moved an application before the Tehsildar Doiwala as well as to the S.D.M. Doiwala for seeking permission to demolish the house which was in dilapidated condition. It is further contended that on the application, the Tehsildar Doiwala instructed to the revenue officials to conduct an inquiry and thereafter an inquiry was conducted and a report was forwarded to Tehsildar Doiwala on 28.11.2025 where it is mentioned that the house which is in a very dilapidated condition and situated in Khata No. 37 of Khasra No. 148 kha measuring 0.1360 hectare is recorded in category 6(2) in Abadi land is the parental house of the deponent. The report is enclosed as CA-2. In para-8, it is further contended that on 17.12.2025 he made an application to the S.H.O. of P.S. 2026:UHC:2465 Ranipokhri as well as the District Magistrate and the S.S.P Dehradun and also a complaint to the Chief Secretary with regard to the encroachment over their parental house and also gave the reference of the threat received from the petitioners. On 19.12.2025 the Division Bench passed an order for maintaining status quo. 10. As it appears from the relief clause, the relief is sought by the petitioners for protection of their life and liberty as well as to the property. Generally if there is threat perception to any person, this Court directs to the S.S.P. to make an assessment and take appropriate steps so that nobody can take law in their hands but by the relief as sought in this petition, the petitioners deliberately praying for protection to the property. The question is whether in a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners can pray for the protection to the property. 11. After having gone through the counter affidavit and the relevant Khatauni, it reveals that asking protection to the property is a deliberate attempt of the petitioners, otherwise, the petitioners have a remedy to avail the civil remedy, if there is an any dispute with regard to the property in question, however, instead of availing the civil remedy, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking protection to the property. 12. This matter is being heard since last so many dates but every time the counsel for the petitioners, on one pretext to another taking adjournment and on his request this Court accommodate him. 13. On 08.05.2026 the matter was posted for today on the request of learned counsel for 2026:UHC:2465 the petitioners since he wanted to show certain documents. Today, now a specific question is asked from the counsel for the petitioners is whether there is any evidence with regard to the possession over the property in question, he could not show any such document. 14. On the other side, so far as the private respondents are concerned, they reported to the revenue officers, who visited the site and submitted report from which it reveals that disputed property is parental house of the respondent no. 5 and this report is unchallenged. 15. The Court also posed a question to the counsel for the petitioners as to how the writ petition is maintainable. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried his best to convince the Court by saying that even otherwise if the petitioners are trespassers over the property, law is very well settled that even they cannot be evicted without due process of law. He submits that at the most property in question as per the revenue record belongs to the State since it is show as Abadi and as such they can be evicted only by the State not by private respondents. 17. This Court is not deciding the issue with regard to the property in question and this petition in fact has been filed only to seek the protection to the property. The admitted position is that the petitioners could not show their possession over the property, rather the report as enclosed with the counter affidavit shows that the property in question is the parental house of the respondent no.5. 18. After having gone through the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit what 2026:UHC:2465 this Court has observed is that in fact this petition has been moved by the petitioners to grab the property which in fact is the ancestral property of the respondent no.5 as per the report. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the instant petition has been filed with an ulterior purpose and motive and appears to be an abuse of process of law and the writ petition is dismissed. In addition to this, it is made clear that the dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioners to avail the civil remedy as per law. 19. The interim order to maintain the status quo stands vacated. 20. No order as to costs. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 12.05.2026 Nahid 2026:UHC:2465