2026:UHC:1624 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/1241/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and 5. 3. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no. 2 and 3 to provide protection to the petitioners against the Private respondents no. 4-5. (ii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the private Respondents no. 4-5 not to infringe the fundamental right of the Petitioners. So that the petitioners and his family can use their house and farm freely. 4. Earlier the Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 14.10.2025 that respondent no.3 to ensure that encroachers do not take advantage of absence of the petitioners from the village and shall ensure safety and security of the property of the petitioners. 5. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 with this contention that the petitioner has not approached with clean hands and certain relevant facts they have suppressed while filing this petition and secondly there is an agreement in between the parties on 24.07.2021 wherein they admit that they will not encroach upon the land of one Meena Devi wife of respondent no.5. 6. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder, on instructions, informed to this Court that there is no threat perception 2026:UHC:1624 from respondent no. 4 and 5. 7. After having gone through with the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit particularly the relief as prayed for. So far as the relief no. 1 is concerned since as on date there is no threat perception from respondent nos. 4 and 5 and therefore at this juncture the said relief cannot be granted and so far as the relief no.2 is concerned, on close scrutiny, it appears that under the garb of seeking protection relief no.2 was sought otherwise for relief 2, the petitioner should avail the civil remedy. 8. It appears from the record that there is some dispute in between the petitioners and respondent nos. 4 and 5 as well as with the wife of respondent no.5 in respect of a piece of land and if it is so, then both the parties are free to avail civil remedies. 9. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition. Both the parties are free to avail the civil remedy. So far as the issue of protection is concerned, since as on date there is no threat perception from the private respondents to the petitioners and even otherwise if there is any threat perception, the petitioner can approach to the S.H.O. concerned, who will assess the situation and if he comes to conclusion that there is any threat perception, he will take immediate steps in this regard. 10. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the property in question except five bigha of land which they have taken forcibly during the pendency of this petition and as such the S.D.M. concerned is directed to ensure the peaceful possession of five bigha land to the respondent no. 4 and 5. 2026:UHC:1624 11. At this juncture, it is further made clear that if there is an apprehension of breach of peace, the S.H.O. concerned are free to proceed under Section 164 and 165 of BNSS. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.03.2026 Nahid