The court clarified the applicability of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the availability of remedies and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in suits of a civil nature.

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. By means of this writ petition, following relief has been sought:-

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3-5, to restore possession of plot of land to the petitioner situated in Ward No. 20/1, Mohalla Jagatpura, Rudrapura from which the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have forcibly evicted the petitioner on 03.01.2017 and grant adequate compensation to the petitioner.”

3. According to the petitioner, his father constructed a tin shed over nazul land situated in Mohalla Jagatpura in Rudrapur town about thirty years ago with the permission of Municipal Board, Rudrapur. Subsequently, on 30.06.1987, Special Nazul Officer, Rudrapur allotted one Nazul plot No. 17 admeasuring 50 square meter, to petitioner’s father in Mohalla Jagatpura for a period of thirty years, but, no lease deed was executed in respect of the said nazul plot. In the year 2002, some neighbours started interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. Consequently, petitioner along with three other persons filed a suit for injunction against (1) Shri Sumer Singh, (2) Shri Shyam Singh, (3) Shri Kalwa and (4) Shri Vidhya Ram, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 103 of 2002. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 24.04.2003 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udham Singh Nagar. On 03.01.2017, the structure raised by the petitioner over the land in question was demolished under the garb of anti-encroachment drive by the Municipal Authorities with the help of District Administration. According to the petitioner, his tin shed was demolished under the pretext that the land is needed for developing a public park, although park was never notified.

4. In paragraph No. 18 of the Writ petition, it has been stated that respondent Nos. 3 & 5 have started making preparation for constructing boundary wall on the site of petitioner’s erstwhile building and for that purpose, they are digging the land.

5. Municipal Corporation, Rudrapur has filed a counter affidavit stating that petitioner had encroached the land of Public Park in Mohalla Jagatpura which was removed on 03.01.2017 in the presence of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It has further been stated that earlier in the year 2002 also, encroachment was removed from the said park in the presence of Additional District Magistrate, Nazul. In paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that petitioner’s father was granted patta of plot No.17 in Mohalla-Jagatpura, which is different land than the land of the park and the said land was disposed of by petitioner to some other person. It has further been stated that under the garb of the patta granted to petitioner’s father, petitioner had made encroachment upon the park land by constructing the tin shed. It has further been stated that Municipal Corporation, Rudrapur was not a party in Civil Suit No.103 of 2002.

6. Tehsildar, Rudrapur has filed a separate counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, whereby certain documents have been brought on record. A perusal of those documents reveals that residents of Jagatpura ward No.1 had made representation against encroachment over park land to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rudrapur and on the direction of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rudrapur, steps were taken for removing the encroachments.

7. From the pleadings made by the parties, it is apparent that petitioner has been dispossessed from the land in question. The relief, which petitioner has sought, is to restore his possession over the land from which he has been dispossessed. Such relief cannot be granted without recording findings on disputed question of facts. In the opinion of this Court, such relief cannot be granted in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and appropriate forum to grant such relief would be a Civil Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner