Sardar Gurdeep Singh vs District Magistrate, Dehradun & another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2017, by which his representation has been rejected by the Executive Engineer, Provincial

Division, Dehradun. The representation was filed by the petitioner in pursuance to an order dated 29.08.2017 passed by this Court in WPMS No.2175

of 2017 in the earlier round of litigation. The said writ petition was filed seeking relief against the proposed demolition of his boundary wall of the

premises of the petitioner which is situated on Haridwar Road, Dehradun. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the respondent

authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order. After hearing all concerned, the Executive Engineer, Public Works

Department came to the conclusion that the petitioner has encroached upon the public property and therefore the representation of the petitioner has

been rejected.

The petitioner contends that he had purchased the property from the erstwhile owners who had got this property in their share after filing a partition

suit which was filed way back in the year 1964. Petitioner is in the possession of the same and it has always been considered to be his property. It has

further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Public Works Department has not made the proper measurement, inasmuch as,

there is difference in measurement by certain feet or inches.

Learned State Counsel Mr. Yogesh Pandey submits that the boundary wall of the petitioner which is on a commercial place encroaches upon the

public land and this determination has been made by the respondent authorities after hearing the petitioner at length in pursuance of this Court’s

order and after carrying out the measurement at the spot.

This Court has perused the impugned order dated 14.09.2017. This Court finds no anomaly in the impugned order which is a well considered order.

In view of the above, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed in limine.

As regards other aspects as to whether the configuration or measurement has been done correctly or not, this cannot be the subject matter of a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, appreciation of the same would involve appreciation of disputed questions of facts,

which cannot be gone into by this Court in a writ petition.