High CourtsSingle Bench

Raheesh Ahmad & another vs District Magistrate, Nainital & others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 13 November 2017 · Citation: (2017) 11 UK CK 0027

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj K. Tiwari
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3998>Constitution of India</a>, <a href=3998-226>Article 226</a> - Power of High Courts to Issue certain writs
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
2816 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

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

7 paragraphs · 311 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2.

According to the petitioners, they purchased a plot of land from one Mr. Jayant Tiwari by a registered sale deed in the year 2012. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhowali, District Nainital started interfering in petitioners'' peaceful possession over the property, therefore, petitioners filed a civil suit No. 1 of 2013 and learned Civil Judge (S/D), Nainital directed the parties to maintain status quo vide order dated 13.07.2015. It is the contention of the petitioners that despite the order passed by learned Civil Judge (S/D), Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhowali has raised construction over the plot in dispute, hence, this writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to restore the status of the land in question as it was on 13.07.2015 when the order of status quo was passed in Civil Suit No. 1/2013 by the court of Civil Judge (S/D), Nainital.

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhowali not to use the land of the petitioner purchased by them through sale deed dated 29.09.2012 measuring 1533.51 Sq.Ft. (142.51 S.Mt) situated near Devoto School within the area of municipality of Bhowali, District Nagar Palika."

3.

Since the dispute is purely civil in nature and the civil suit, filed by the petitioners is pending before the competent court of law, therefore, no interference in the matter is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4.

Accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

5.

However, petitioners shall be at liberty to make appropriate application before the competent court in respect of violation, if any, of the interim order passed in Civil Suit No. 1 of 2013.