UKHC010119212026 2026:UHC:6101 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2079/2026 Paras Jain --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Ms. Riddhi Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Yogesh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. According to petitioner, he owns a piece of land situate at Village Malakpur Lateefpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. His grievance is that Public Works Department is constructing a bridge over his land without acquiring the same, as per law. 4. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows:- (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to proceed to raise construction over the land in khasra no. 34/3 situated at Village Malakpur Lateefpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, after following due process of law, and prohibiting the respondents from depriving the petitioner of his immovable property in breach of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner before proceedings to raise any construction UKHC010119212026 2026:UHC:6101 over the land situated at Village Malakpur Lateefpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. (contained as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) (Page No. 62). 5. Learned State Counsel was given time to get instructions. Today, on instructions, he submits that the land in question was acquired by the State in the year 1974; Learned State Counsel, thus, disputes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the owner of the land question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that petitioner has made representation to District Magistrate, Hardwar, which is on record as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. She submits that District Magistrate be asked to take decision on the representation. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that he has no objection if the petition is disposed of in terms of the prayer made by petitioner’s counsel. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate, Haridwar to consider the issue raised by petitioner in his representation dated 05.03.2026 and pass appropriate order, as per law, within four months thereafter. It goes without saying that Executive Engineer of the concerned Construction Division shall also be heard before taking any final decision in the matter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 20.07.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1 369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F46 10C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.20 06:51:49 -07'00' UKHC010119212026 2026:UHC:6101