IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Interim Relief Application No. 7751/08 Delay Condonation Application No. 9086/08 Delay Condonation Application No. 844/09 Delay Condonation Application No. 843/09 IN Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition) No. 909 of 2008 Smt. Urmila Biswas wife of Sri Subhash Biswas resident of Sanjay Nagar, Ward No. 3 Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand Sashan, Dehradun and three others. …..Respondents. Dated:- 12th February, 2009 Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. {Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Sri D.S. Mehta, advocate for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyay, learned brief holder for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Lalit Sharma, advocate for the respondent no. 4. 2. By means of this writ petition, in the form of public interest litigation, the petitioner has sought mandamus directing the respondents to take action for removing the illegal encroachment from the building and filed of Primary School and Junior High School situated at Sanjay Nagar, Ward No. 3, Rudrapur, Udham Singh. 3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner is elected ward member of Sanjay Nagar from Ward No. 3, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar and in that capacity she is also member of Shiksha Samiti of the said ward. It is pleaded by the petitioner that in ward no. 3, there is one Primary School and one Junior High School, which are imparting education to some three hundred children. The schools are built in an area of 45 meters x 143 meters. It is alleged by the petitioner that some criminal elements have threatened to encroach upon the premises of the school. The Sate Administration Authorities, when approached, did not take action. Hence, this writ petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar-respondent no. 2, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner herself is an unauthorized occupant on the nazul land of the Government in Mohalla Sanjay Nagar in District Udham Singh Nagar. The District Magistrate has further mentioned in para 3 (C) that the land on which the illegal encroachment is alleged, is not part of the premises of either Primary School or that of Junior High School. In para 7 of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 4, it has been specifically denied that any part of premises of Primary School or Junior High School is encroached upon. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Nagar Palika that some persons of displaced Bengali Community have encroached upon at a distance of some 110 feet away from the wall of the school. On behalf of respondent no. 4, i.e. Nagar Palika Parishad, it has also been stated that the petitioner herself is in possession of nazul land of the State Government, without any authority of law. 5. In the rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner, this fact has not been specifically denied that the petitioner has not unauthorisedly encroached upon the nazul land of the Government. However, the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the parties, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner as she is said to have herself encroached upon the nazul land of the Government. Apart from this the disputed questions of fact as to the occupation of the premises cannot be decided by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents have categorically stated that there had been no encroachment by anyone within the premises of the schools. From annexure R.A. –1 of the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, it is clear that the alleged encroachers are the displaced Bengali families of ‘Kichha’ and not any land mafias. 7. No one turned up to press the intervention application on behalf of the 82 applicants who have alleged themselves to be poor displaced persons. 8. In the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to pass any direction in the writ petition filed in the form of public interest litigation, therefore, the public interest litigation is closed. The writ petition is dismissed. 9. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 12.2.2009 RMY