THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 158 of 2010. Khursheet Ahmad, S/O Late Shri Anwar Ahmad, R/O 488/1 Ganeshpur Sabrysaray, Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand, through District Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Uttarakhand Waqf Board, 313 Cham Vihar Lain No.7, Niranjanpur, Dehradun. 4. Municipal Board Roorkee, through its Executive Officer, Roorkee, District Haridwar. …Respondents. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri D.Barthwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Date February 15, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 574 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish the property of the petitioner and to evict the petitioner without adopting legal procedure. According to the petitioner, he is in possession of the property bearing Municipal No. 488/1 Ganeshpur, Sabry Sarai, Roorkee, district Haridwar and he is the licencee on behalf of the Waqf Board and the petitioner is regularly paying the licence fee to the Waqf Board. After getting the licence from the Waqf Board, the petitioner with its consent raised a permanent structure over the said land and constructed a house about 25 years ago. The petitioner is enjoying the property since then. The petitioner also got his name mutated in the records of Municipal Board Roorkee and he has been paying tax to the municipal board. The petitioner also got electric connection as well as 2 telephone connection in respect of the said property. On 8-2-2010, the respondent no.2- S.D.M. Roorkee visited the spot and threatened the petitioner to demolish his house in the garb of encroachment drive. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner and other people of the locality pretended against the action of the respondent no.2 and produced all the relevant documents regarding his rights over the property in question and he refused to listen to the petitioner. I have perused the material placed before this Court and the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. There is no mention in the petition as to on which plot number of village Ganeshpur, Tehsil Roorkee, the petitioner has got his house constructed or on which plot the property in question is situated. No such document has been filed along with the petition, which could indicate that the construction has been made by the petitioner in his own land and not over the public land/road. Without any evidence placed on record, in writ jurisdiction the disputed questions of fact cannot be verified. Moreover, the relief sought for by the petitioner is in the nature of an injunction order, for which the petitioner may approach the civil court for redressal of his grievance. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to the dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner may file civil suit before the competent court to prove his title, if he is so advised. The interim order dated 11-2-2010 passed by this Court is vacated. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3