Thechku vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1) Issue notice.

2) Learned counsel for the respondents appears and accepts notice.

3) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the notice dated 20.09.2022, issued by respondent No. 4, i.e., Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, requiring the petitioner to remove the encroachment from khasra No. 371A, admeasuring 0.0098 Hectares, falling in category 6-3, over which the pucca construction has been found to exist, which is allegedly illegally occupied by the petitioner.

4) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the property from the erstwhile owner way back on 22.09.1998, which was also mutated in the revenue records in the year 1999, in favour of the petitioner, falling in khasra No. 352. According to the petitioner, the property is not falling in khasra No. 371A, as alleged by the respondents.

5) Pertinently, the petitioner appears to have taken no steps to have his property demarcated to establish that it is, indeed, falling in khasra No. 352, as claimed by him, despite the fact that the notice was issued as early as on 20.09.2022.

6) Counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that the property in question is situated in khasra No. 371A. He further submits that the respondents only demolish the property situated in khasra no. 371A.

7) In the light of the aforesaid, we dispose of this petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps, as the petitioner is advised, to have his property demarcated. The statement made by counsel for the respondents is also taken on record. The respondents shall remain bound by the same.

8) The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

9) Interim relief application (IA No. 01 of 2023) also stands disposed of.