IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2569 of 2011 Dilsher Hussain and others …Petitioners Versus The State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Present : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. H.M.Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. H. M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioners are the occupants of “Khokha” over the “Nala” which comes within the purview of “Nagar Palika”, Jaspur. The petitioners have been given an eviction and demolition notice dated 29.11.2011 by “Nagar Palika”, Jaspur. Earlier the eviction notice dated 19.9.2011 was challenged by the petitioners by means of a writ petition being writ petition (M/S) no. 2122 of 2011 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court with a direction to “Nagar Palika”, Jaspur to evict the petitioners only in accordance with law. Thereafter after adopting due process, the petitioners have now been given eviction notice dated 29.11.2011 which is presently under challenge. The petitioners apprehend that they are being removed to settle some another person to use the land for commercial purposes. 3. Mr. D. S. Patni, Advocate representing respondent nos. 2 and 3 has filed affidavits, where in para 3 it has been stated as under : “3. That the Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur took a decision not to auction the Khokas in question situated over the Nala with 2 a view to clean the Nala and for road widening. The deponent undertakes that after removal of the four Khokas in question situated over the Nala the Nagar Palika will not utilize the said space for any commercial purpose and leave the top of Nala open. There will be no construction permanent or temporary wherein the four Khoka in question are stalled.” 4. Thus the apprehension of the petitioners that after evicting the petitioners, the place will be given to other does not seem to be justified. As such, there is no occasion to interfere in the present matter. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 5. Interim order dated 8.12.2011 stands vacated. 6. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.12.2011 Kuldeep