Pankaj Pal vs Nagar Nigam, Dehradun And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

A writ petition bearing WPMS No.1635 of 2024 (“the first writ petition”) was filed in this Court seeking directions for removal of encroachment that has been done by the petitioner on public land. The first writ petition was decided on 08.07.2024 and the court passed the following order:-

“Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, within ten days from today. If such representation is made within the stipulated period, the Municipal Commissioner shall call for a report from the concerned authorities and take decision, as per law, within six weeks. It goes without saying that respondent no.4 shall also be given notice before taking any decision in the matter.”

A review petition was filed in the first petition. At the time of hearing of the review petition, on behalf of the respondent no.1, a statement was given that pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2024, passed in the first petition, the decision has already been taken on 15.10.2024 by the respondent no.1, Nagar Nigam, Dehradun. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed. However, the Court made it clear that the order that has been passed by the respondent no.1 may be challenged in a separate proceeding.

It may be noted that pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2024, an inspection was carried out by the respondent no.1 and it was found that some encroachment was done by the petitioner; the construction was demolished and a proceedings under the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was also initiated.

Now, petitioner challenges the proceeding dated 15.10.2024 of the respondent no.1, by which, construction that has been raised by the petitioner was removed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a suit has already been filed by the petitioner with regard to his land. He had purchased the land-in-dispute by a valid sale-deed. Even in the civil suit, respondent no.1, Nagar Nigam is a party. Demolition has been done despite pendency of the civil suit.

The first petition was filed with the averment that the petitioner has encroached on the public land. The Court, on 08.07.2024, directed the respondent no.1 to take necessary action in the matter. Accordingly, a joint inspection was done and it was found that the petitioner had encroached on a portion of public land, which was demolished.

Admittedly, there had been no stay of any civil court in the matter, in which, the respondent no.1 is also a party. This Court cannot go into the factual aspects now. As to what was the measurement at the spot? How much property, the petitioner had purchased? As to whether, he had encroached any land? And; if so, as to what extent?; etc.

The petitioner admitted that he had already filed a civil suit on the same issue. Therefore, the petitioner may very well seek appropriate remedy in the civil case with regard to any action that has been taken by the respondent no.1, if law so permits. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no interfere is warranted in the instant matter.

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.