AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 213 wordsRamesh Ranganathan, CJ
The delay of five days in preferring the Special Appeal is not opposed, and the delay is, therefore, condoned.
This Special Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No.2880 of 2017. The petitioners claim that they
are being forcibly evicted from the subject land which they claim to be in possession of.
The petitioners, on their own admission, are not the owners of the subject land which they claim to be in possession of. It is their case that the
subject land belongs to the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttarakhand.
The stand of the BHEL, on the other hand, is that the subject land belongs to them.
The inter se dispute between the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttarakhand and BHEL cannot be examined in proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
We are satisfied, therefore, that the learned Single Judge was justified in not entertaining the writ petition.
Suffice it to make it clear that it is open to the respondents to evict the unauthorized occupants, on the subject land, in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid observation, the Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.