Sheela Devi @ Sheela Bahuguna vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

According to the petitioner, she purchased a plot of land in Village Majrigrant, Tehsil Doiwala, District Dehradun, by a sale deed executed in the

year 2013, which was registered in the year 2015.

According to petitioner, Prantiya Rakshak Dal was proposing to construct a mini stadium adjacent to the land, which was purchased by petitioner

and since there was a boundary dispute between petitioner and Prantiya Rakshak Dal, therefore, petitioner moved an application under Section 41 of

Land Revenue Act.

It is not in dispute that subsequent to filing of the demarcation application, the boundary of the land purchased by petitioner was corrected through a

correction deed, whereby the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was corrected, on 10.12.2021.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs.

“I. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to got conduct the fair inquiry and

demarcation of petitioner’s land of Khasra No. 4188 ra min and land of mini sports stadium of khasra no. 4189 kha min situated at Mauja

Majrigrant Pargana Pachwadoon, Tehsil Doiwala, District Dehradun, it is also prayed that if possible, the inspection and demarcation of the land in

question be conducted under the supervision of the authority/panel/court commissioner as may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court.

II. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondents from continuing with the construction work of Mini Sports

Stadium till the demarcation of petitioner’s land of Khasra No. 4188 ra min and land of mini sports stadium of khasra no. 4189 kha min situated at

Mauja Majrigrant Pargana Pachwadoon Tehsil Doiwala District Dehradun and till the finalization of demarcation proceedings status quo be directed to

be maintained.

Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Addl. C.S.C. for the State however points out that there is ambiguity regarding boundary of the land purchased by petitioner and

further there is no clarity regarding plot numbers. He further submits that petitioner wants possession of land, by moving an application under Section

41 of the Act, for demarcation. This, according to him, is not permissible, as possession cannot be claimed in summary proceedings under Section 41

of Land Revenue Act

This Court finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of respondents. If petitioner has a dispute regarding title and possession, then such

dispute can only be resolved by a Competent Civil or Revenue Court, as the case may be. The public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution

cannot be invoked for adjudication of property dispute.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.