IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 920 of 2008 Gopal Datt “Sarpach” Van Panchayat Kotsiyari ..………….Petitioner. Versus District Magistrate, District Almora and others. …..……Respondents. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. CLMA No. 529 of 2010 For the reasons indicated in the Delay Condonation Application, delay in filing the Supplementary Counter Affidavit is condoned. Supplementary Counter Affidavit is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 920 of 2008 In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit, specially in paragraph 4 thereof, it is, inter alia, stated as under: “4. That it is respectfully submitted that as per the Challani Report of the Patwari Kotsari dated 6/12/2008, the said encroacher Sri Khim Singh S/o Sri Khushal Singh, Village Kotsari has illegally inj possession/encroached 0.040 Hec. Land over the said recorded in non Z.A. Khatauni Khata No. 54, Khet No. 3378 measuring total area 0.070 hec. Without any permission of the State Government and has constructed residential house, cattle shed & illegally occupying the said land by growing vegetables on it. The said illegally encroached land comes under the area of Van Panchayat, which is about 0.040 hec. land. The said land is situated 2 near the Motor Road. The petitioner is in unauthorised occupation over the said land since 30 years from which he gained benefit approximately of Rs. 24,000/- @ of Rs. 800/- per year. For ready reference, copies of the Challani Report alongwith the map showing the area illegally occupied by the petitioner of Van Panchayat are collectively being annexed as Annexure SCA-2 to this affidavit.” In view of the factual position depicted in paragraph 4 extracted hereinabove, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous on account of the fact that necessary permissible proceedings have been initiated against Sri Khim Singh, S/o Sri Khushal Singh (respondent no. 10), the only alleged unauthorised occupant of Forest Panchayat Land. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel representing respondent no. 1 is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in fact acknowledges that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous on account of the factual proposition depicted in paragraph 4 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 15.2.2010 Avneet