Uttarakhand High Court

Jagmohan Pokhriyal v. State of Uttarakhand

2026:UHC:5753 · WPMS/2099/2026

Decision date
2026-07-14
Text availability
Full text
Judges
Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Source: Indian High Court Judgments, AWS Open Data (CC BY 4.0) ↗

Connected provisions and cases

No further provision or case links are recorded.

Judgment text

UKHC010120932026 2026:UHC:5753 Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedingsSL. Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERSNo. and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPMS/2099/2026 Jagmohan Pokhriyal --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rahul Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner is tenant in a shop owned by respondent nos. 4 & 5. According to petitioner, respondent nos. 4 & 5 initially made an offer to petitioner to purchase the shop, but subsequently they have submitted a similar proposal to another person. 4. In this petition, petitioner contends that portion of shop, in which he is a tenant, is constructed over Government Land. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3/revenue authority to conduct spot inspection, demarcation and record verification. (ii) And further to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition directing the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to prohibit the private respondents from creating any third-party interest over the property in question. UKHC010120932026 2026:UHC:5753

(iii) And further to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the official respondents to protect the property in question, a portion of which is Government property comprised in Khasra nos. 1950ma and 1951ma. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner is trying to give a different colour to a private dispute for approaching this Court. He submits that if petitioner has any grievance, then he can represent to the matter before the Authority concerned. 6. This Court do not find any scope for interference in the matter. If petitioner has anything to say, it can be said by him by making a representation to the Competent Authority. This Court is not inclined to issue any further direction in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 14.07.2026 Aswal NITI signedo=HIGHby UTTARAKHAND,c=IN, SINGH RAJ DigitallyDN:OF2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3,st=UTTARAKHAND,serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0,Date: 2026.07.14 04:54:15 COURTNITIpostalCode=263001,RAJOF-07'00'SINGHUTTARAKHAND,ASWALcn=NITI RAJou=HIGHSINGH ASWALCOURT ASWAL