IMPORTANT POINT
The court cannot adjudicate ownership disputes under Article 226 and emphasizes the need for civil court remedies for such matters.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent 1 to 4 to provide appropriate police and administrative force to maintain law and order on the land of the petitioner depicted by Khasra No.170 situated in Village Saidpura Mewarkala District Haridwar while the petitioner removes the statue of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar from his above stated land.

(ii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award cost of the petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he instituted a civil suit, O.S. No.117 of 2008, Anil Kumar Vs. Mustakeem and Others, against Mustakeem, Rajendra Sharma, R.K. Tyagi, Kali Ram and Teerath Singh (“the defendants”) for permanent injunction (“the suit”) regarding land Khasra No.170, situated in Village Saidpura, Mewarkala, District Haridwar (“the disputed land”). The suit was dismissed on 30.01.2014. The petitioner did move Civil Appeal No.6 of 2014, Anil Kumar Vs. Mustakeem and Others, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2014, passed in the suit, in the court of District Judge, Haridwar (“the appeal”). The appeal was decided on 28.02.2015 and the suit was decreed restraining the defendants in the suit, namely, Mustakeem, Rajendra Sharma, R.K. Tyagi, Kali Ram and Teerath Singh in interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the disputed land.

4. It has been the case of the petitioner that despite the suit having been decreed in appeal, the defendants continued interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the disputed land. The petitioner approached the police, but no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner did move a writ petition no.448 of 2016 (“the first writ petition”) before this Court seeking directions that the revenue authority may be directed to take a decision on the representation that was made by the petitioner. In the first writ petition, on 27.02.2016, the Court had directed the concerned revenue officer to decide the representation of the petitioner. The chronology, thereafter, is as follows:-

(a) The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, called a report from the police and ensured that interference is not made with the possession of the petitioner, but still interference continued and the petitioner was not permitted to work on the disputed land.

(b) Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No.601 of 2016 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 29.06.2016, while recording the statement given by the learned counsel for the respondents in the petition that they would not cause any harm to the petitioner, and also given liberty to the petitioner to approach the Senior Superintendant of Police, Haridwar, as and when need arises.

(c) The two of the defendants, namely, Tirath and Kaliram, did file a review application in the first writ petition, which was subsequently withdrawn by them. Thereafter, Tirath and Kaliram filed a civil suit OS No.76 of 2016 by concealing the fact of appeal and also by concealing that a decree is operating against them with regard to the disputed land.

(d) The two of the defendants, Tirath and Kaliram, filed Writ Petition No.2218 of 2016 before this Court, which was dismissed on 16.08.2016. This Court has then observed that both, Tirath and Kaliram, had already appeared in a execution proceeding and had filed their objections as well.

(e) In the execution proceedings, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was filed by two of the defendants, Tirath and Kaliram, which was registered as Misc. Case No.9 of 2016, in the court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Roorkeee, District Haridwar. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was dismissed on 01.09.2016.

(f) Thereafter, it