Advocates:
['CHARANJEET KAUR', 'ASTT S G', 'C S C', 'NARESH PANT']

WPMS No. 2378 of 2019

with

WPMS No. 2379 of 2019

WPMS No. 2380 of 2019

Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

Ms. Charanjeet Kaur, learned counsel

for the petitioners.

Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned Additional

C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned Central

Government Standing Counsel for the Union

of India.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since common questions of law and fact

are involved in these writ petitions, therefore

are being taken up together and are being

adjudicated by this common judgment.

However, for the sake of clarity, facts of

WPMS

No.

2378

of

2019

are

being

considered.

By

means

of

this

writ

petition,

petitioner has sought following relief:-

“Issue a writ or writs, order or orders, direction

or directions particularly to issue a writ of

certiorari to call for the record of the case and to

quash the impugned joint inspection report

dated 21.05.2018 by which the respondents

had unlawfully declared the land in question as

State Government’s land that

to without

considering the fact that said land belongs to

petitioner and falls in Khasra No. 184/2 which

has already been notified for acquisition under

Section, 3D of the National Highways Act vide

Gazette Notification dated 11.08.2017.”

Petitioner owns a rice mill, which is

adjacent to Panipat-Khatima Motor Road.

The said road is now being developed as

National

Highway

No.

74

and

land

acquisition proceedings were initiated under

the provision of National Highways Act.

According to the petitioner, on the

advice of Officials of National Highways of

Authority of India, petitioner applied for

demarcation of his land. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer, Udham Singh Nagar

directed

the

Tehsildar

Rudrapur

to

demarcate

the

land

belonging

to

the

petitioner.

Ultimately,

the

Tehsildar,

Rudrapur made a joint inspection and

submitted the report on 21.05.2018 holding

that

petitioner

has

encroached

upon

Government land belonging to Public Works

Department. This joint inspection report has

been put to challenge in the present writ

petition.

According to learned counsel for the

petitioner, petitioner has not encroached

upon any part of Government land and his

rice mill, including its boundary wall, are

constructed over his private land. However,

the joint inspection report, submitted by the

Revenue Authorities, belies the stand taken

by the petitioner. Thus, there are disputed

questions of fact involved in this writ

petition, which cannot be decided based on

affidavits in a writ petition.

Since petitioner has raised a title

dispute, which would require recording of

evidence, therefore this Court is not inclined

to entertain the writ petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner

can approach a competent Civil/Revenue

Court, if so advised.

In such view of the matter, the writ

petitions are dismissed in limine. No order

as to costs.

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)

Navin

17.08.2019