IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No. 8816 of 2009 Restoration Application No. 772 of 2009 In WRIT PETITION NO. 3820 of 2001 (M/S) Dharmerndra Son of Late Sri Nehar Singh, Resident of Village Tejju Pur, Post Office Chodiala, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. Gram Pradhan Gram Sabha Tejju Pur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Lekhpal Halka Lekhpal Tejjupur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Tehsildar Magistrate, Tehsil Roorke, District Haridwar. 4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. 5. District Magistrate, District Haridwar. ………Respondents. Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. Date:- 23-12-2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. Heard on delay condonation application no. 8816 of 2009 accompanied with an affidavit for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application. The grounds shown in the affidavit are sufficient to allow application. 2 The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. (Application No. 8816 of 2009 disposed of.) Also, heard on restoration application no. 772 of 2009 accompanied with an affidavit. Grounds shown in the affidavit are sufficient to allow the application. The restoration application is allowed. The order dated 12-04-2006 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number along with interim order dated 6-10-1998. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the land in dispute on the ground that notice dated 23-7- 1993 under Section 49-A, which was issued against him by the Tehsildar in case No. 60/215 of 1993 in proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was withdrawn on 3-9-1993 even though the Pradhan is threatening the petitioner for demolishing his house, which belongs to the petitioner. Disputed question of facts cannot be examined in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has an alternate remedy to file the suit for permanent injunction before the 3 competent court, if he has some apprehension of interference is being done by the respondent. On the ground of alternate remedy, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner if any order has been passed in revision, if filed against the order of Tehsildar dated 3-9-1993 is 122-B proceeding by the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner may also assail that order by filing a fresh writ petition. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma, J.) 23-12-2009 MK