Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Uttaranchal High Court
Salim vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 30 January, 2017
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                    NAINITAL

                        Writ Petition No. 210 of 2017(M/S)


Salim                                              ............... Petitioner
                                      [




                                     versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                     .......... Respondents



Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel with Mr. I.P Kohli, Brief Holder present for the
State.


U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs, among others:

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus as to command the respondent no.1 to 3 to remove the illegal encroachment and illegal possession of the respondents over public utility land plot khata no. 169 village Mukarabpur, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Hardwar, reserved and earmarked for the purpose of manure pits.
Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to take appropriate and lawful action on various applications/representations including the application dated 06.01.2017 & 13.01.2017 while deciding the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of 15 days lying pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Roorkee, Haridwar (respondent no.2)."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition.

2

3. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only to the extent that applications/representations dated 06.01.2017 & 13.01.2017 filed by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Roorkee may be decided in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order.

4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that he has no objection, if such a direction is issued by this Court.

5. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage by directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate Roorkee to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, by a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Needful be done within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the representations.

6. Urgency Application being IA No. 508 of 2017 and Misc Application No. 833 of 2017 stand disposed of.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.) Vacation Judge 30.01.2017 NP 3