Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/3281/2025 of VIJENDER SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 3 December 2025
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D1- 01 WPMS No.3281 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Sanding Counsel for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D1- 01
WPMS No.3281 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Sanding Counsel for the State. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to do demarcation/hadbandi paimais of the petitioner’s agricultural land in village- Basgar, pargna-Khatima, tahsil- Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 11.11.2025 of the petitioner. iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had moved an application for demarcation of the property, which has yet not been done. He has not been informed anything; he has given a representation on 23.08.2024, which is Annexure No.9 to the writ petition, but it has yet not been decided. Learned State Counsel submits that, as per instructions, the petitioner, at present, is not in possession of the property. Therefore, the demarcation could not be done. He further submits that insofar as the representation dated 23.08.2024, which is Annexure No.9 to the writ petition, is concerned, it may be decided within four weeks from today. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned State Counsel. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation dated 23.08.2024, which is Annexure No.9 to the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from today, in accordance with law.
(Ravindra Maithani J.)
03.12.2025 RV