AJIT SINGH PUNDIR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010141782023

2026:UHC:9995-DB


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
October 31, 2026

Writ Petition (M/S) No.2460 of 2023
Umesh Chandra Nautiyal ----Petitioner
Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents

And
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2591 of 2023
Ajit Singh Pundir and Others ----Petitioners
Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
None present for the petitioner in WPMS No.2460/2023
Ms. Ananya Jain, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for
the petitioners in WPMS No.2591/2023.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Standing
Counsel for the State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)


1. Notices were issued against the petitioners asking
them to remove their encroachment from government/forest
land. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging
the eviction notices.
2. Since common question of law and facts are
involved in these writ petitions, therefore, they are being
1

UKHC010141782023

2026:UHC:9995-DB

heard and decided by this common judgment. However, for
sake of brevity, facts of WPMS No.2460/2023 alone, are being
considered and discussed.
3. The relief sought in WPMS No.2460/2023 is as
follows:-
“(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned encroachment notice no.451/6C
dated 19.08.2023 and notice no.452/6C dated 19.08.2023
issued by the office of Assistant Engineer, Construction
Division, PWD, Duggadda, Pauri Garhwal annexed as
Annexure No.1 & 2 to this writ petition.”

4. The impugned notices dated 19.08.2023 are
enclosed as Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition. It is
mentioned in the notice that petitioner (Umesh Chandra
Nautiyal) has encroached public land belonging to PWD on
roadside, and which has resulted in reduction in width of the
road and is creating bottleneck; petitioner was asked to
remove his encroachment many times but he has not
removed his encroachment, and there is every possibility of
road accidents happening due to encroachment raised by the
petitioner and petitioner was asked to remove encroachment
within three days, failing which encroachment made by him
shall be removed at petitioner’s cost and expense.
5. Our attention is drawn to order passed by
Coordinate Bench on 17.10.2023. Relevant extract of said
2

UKHC010141782023

2026:UHC:9995-DB

order is reproduced below:-
“4. We direct the State to file its affidavit in response to
the Preliminary Report submitted by Mr. Mainali. At the
same time, we direct the State to implement the
suggestions given by Mr. Mainali in his report. The State
shall constitute a Coordination Committee at the level of
each District. The Coordination Committee should consists
of the Divisional Forest Officer concerned, the District
Magistrate of the District concerned, the Superintending
Engineer of the District concerned of PWD, and the
Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department in the
District concerned to ensure demarcation of boundaries so
that action could be taken for removal of encroachments
from public land.
5. In respect of each Sub Division, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate concerned shall also be associated by the
Coordination Committee for the purpose of undertaking
demarcation and identification of encroachments.
6. The Committee shall be headed by the District
Magistrate concerned, whose responsibility it shall be to call
the meetings, and maintain the record.
7. The Coordination Committee should meet at least
once a month to carry out its aforesaid mandate.”

6. Learned State Counsel submits that, pursuant to
order dated 17.10.2023, State Government has constituted
Coordination Committee headed by District Magistrate in each
of the 13 district within State of Uttarakhand.
7. Since Coordination Committee, which has to
examine the issue of encroachment, is in place, therefore, we
think that ends of justice would be met if petitioners are
3

UKHC010141782023

2026:UHC:9995-DB

permitted to give reply to the impugned notice to the
Coordination Committee within three weeks. The Coordination
Committee shall consider the reply submitted by petitioners
and take appropriate decision as per law within three months
thereafter. For a period of four months or till decision is taken
by the Coordination Committee, whichever is earlier, status
quo as regards the land in possession of petitioners,
regarding which notice was issued to the petitioners, shall be
maintained.
8. Subject to the above, writ petitions stand disposed
of.

_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.




____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 31.10.2026

Rajni



4