2026:UHC:4227-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 27th May, 2026 Special Appeal No. 192 of 2026 Rajendra Prasad Badoni ------Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others -----Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant (through V.C.) Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Gajendra Tripathi and Mr. M.S.Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Ms. Anjai Bharagav, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1. The present intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 15.05.2026, by which, the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1378 of 2026, filed by the appellant has been dismissed. In the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1378 of 2026, following reliefs were claimed:- “(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to 3 to demolish the illegal construction made by the respondent no. 4 to 6 on the land bearing Khasra No. 2660 area measuring 0.0900 mutated and recorded in the name of Gram Sabha in revenue records. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to 3 to take necessary action against the respondent no.4 to 6 for encroachment and for doing illegally construction of the 1 2026:UHC:4227-DB land of the Gram Sabha in accordance with law. 2. The learned Single Judge has held that, in case, the land over which, encroachment has been alleged is Gaon Sabha land, Gaon Sabha can file suit for ejectment. In case, it is a public rasta, it would amount to a public nuisance for which appropriate proceedings can be initiated under Section 152 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. In view of the availability of the said remedies, the learned Single Judge has declined to examine the issues in writ jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the land-in-question is public rasta and the only way available to approach his house. 5. Undoubtedly, in such circumstances, proceedings for removal of nuisance can be initiated under Section 152 BNS, 2023. He can seek other civil remedies as well. The controversy being factual in nature, the learned Single Judge has rightly not examined the same in writ jurisdiction. 6. We thus find no illegality in the order of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 2 2026:UHC:4227-DB 7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 27.05.2026 Kaushal 3