IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 1066 (M/S) of 2006 Smt. Hemlata, aged about 58 years, wife of Sri Surendra Singh, E – 87, Paschimi Vihar, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. ……Petitioner V e r s u s 1. State of Uttaranchal through its Secretary, Housing Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. The District Magistrate, Pithoragarh. 3. Nagar Palika Parishad, Pithoragarh through its Chairman / Executive Officer. 4. The Niyat Pradhikari, Viniyamit Kshetra, Pithoragarh. 5. Sri Ravindra Singh Bisht, S/o late Sri Chanchal Singh. 6. Sri Dev Raj Singh Bisht, S/o late Sri Chanchal Singh. 7. Sri Rishendra Singh Bisht, S/o Sri Dev Raj Singh Bisht. 8. Col. Surendra Singh Bisht, alias Shamsher S/o late Sri Narendra Singh Bisht. 5-8 above are residents of Maldar Bhawan, Purani Bazar, District – Pithoragarh. 9. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Head Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow. 10. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Anchalik Karyalaya, 148, Civil Lines, Bareilly. 11. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, 5th Circle, Almora. ………Opposite Parties Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for State of Uttaranchal on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2, Sri Vikas Panedy, for respondent no. 3 and Sri Ashish Joshi, for respondent nos. 9 to 11. Learned counsel for both the parties are agree to decide the writ petition at its admission stage itself. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/ set aside the order dated 10.07.2003 passed by the respondent no. 4 (contained in Annexure No. 1). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties 5 to 11 to vacate the land in question which they have encroached upon illegally and to stop the illegal construction activities being carried out by them in the land in question, forthwith. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties 1 to 4 to restrain the opposite parties 5 to 8 or their agents and representatives from encroaching upon and raising any further constructions in the land in question and further to ensure peaceful possession of the said land by the petitioner. IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties 2 to get the illegal construction raised on the property in dispute demolished at the risk and cost of the respondent no. 5 to 11. V. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties no. 2 to dispose of the application dated 18.12.1999 filed by the petitioner for conversion of the land in question into free hold land in pursuance of the Government Order dated 01.12.1998 issued by the Department of Housing, Government of U.P. expeditiously in favour of the petitioner, preferably within a time bound period. VI. Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case VII. award the costs the writ petition to the petitioner vis-à-vis the opposite parties no. 5 to 8. So far as relief no. 5 is concerned the same can be granted by Division Bench of this high court. So far as relief no. 1 is concerned, petitioner may file separate writ petition. So far as relief nos. 2 to 4 are concerned petitioner can file suit before the competent court. So far as relief no. 1 is concerned, according to the petitioner on the complaint made by petitioner notice was issued by the prescribed to the respondents. On the complaint of petitioner to the Chairman, Nagar Palika that the respondents are making construction over the land which is in possession of the petitioner and further that the permission and approval of map for construction raising construction has been taken by the respondents by making misrepresentation. The Chairman of Nagar Palika parishad approached respondent no. 4 who issued notice to the respondent, however, on the date fixed the Nagar Palika was not present and the case, was closed by the respondent no. 4 on 10.07.2003. Aggrieved with the order dated 10.07.2003 passed by prescribed authority regulated area Pithoragarh, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Learned standing counsel has pointed out that under section 15 (2) of U.P. Regularization of Building Act 1958 any person aggrieved by the order under Section 7 refusing or granting permission for construction may preferred appeal to the Controlling Authority. Since there is statutory provision for making appeal writ petition is not maintainable. I find force in the submission of learned standing counsel. Petitioner has alternative remedy to file appeal before the Controlling Authority under section 15 (2) of the Act. Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J) August 08, 2006 SKSharma