IN THE COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 364 of 2006 (M/B) 1. Denial s/o Munna Lal 2. Pattu Lal s/o Munna Lal 3. Mubarak s/o late Prem Lal 4. Prabhu s/o Munna Lal 5. Smt. Indra w/o Late Prem All are resident of village Kichha Paragana Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar …… Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Home Secretary, Dehradun. 2. Director General of Police, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 3. Commissioner, Kumaon Region Nainital. 4. District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Commissioner Consolidation/ Director Consolidation Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 6. Sitaram s/o Ram Prasad, G.M. Rice Mill Rudrapur Road, Kichha, District- U.S. Nagar. 7. Ghansyam Das S/o Prabhati Lal, R/o Shakti Rice Mill Rudrapur Road, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. 8. Babu Lal s/o Kishori Lal, R/o Aggarwal Rice Mill, Rudrapur Road Kichha, District U.S. Nagar. 9. Suresh Aggrawal s/o Babu Lal, Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. ……Respondents Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.C.Gupta, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal, Advocate for the petitioners is heard on admission. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: 2 “1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to 5 to restore the possession of the petitioners over the land falling in Khata No. 216 and Gata No. 341/2 measuring 5 Bigha by ejecting the respondent no. 6 to 8 there from forthwith and if necessary for ejecting them they may use the Police Force for the said purpose. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent no. 3 and 4 to recover an amount as a damages from the respondent no. 6 to 8 which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and the same be paid to the petitioners or for the purposes of damages the petitioners may be permitted to move an application before the authority concern for claiming the appropriate damages which they have suffered due to the grabbing of their land and the said authority may be directed to pass a speaking order and to ensure the compliance thereof with immediate effect. 3. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.” 3. The petitioners are seeking restoration of their possession over the land in question. In the writ petition it has not been categorically stated as to when the petitioners were allegedly dispossessed by respondents 6 to 8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners informed us that the alleged act of dispossession took place 10-15 years before the filing of the petition. 4. From the averments made in the petition and the reliefs sought by the petitioners, it is apparent that present is a simple case of dispossession of an individual by another individual. In our opinion, the reliefs sought by the petitioners cannot be granted in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Petitioners , however, shall be at liberty to work out other remedies which may be available to them under the relevant provisions of law. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 30.03.2006 30.03.2006 A