NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20:

1. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to forthwith enforce and ensure strict compliance of the SDM's order dated 13.11.2025 (annexure-08) thereby stopping all construction activitiy and maintaining status quo over Khasra No.372.

(ii) Direct the respondent authorities to take immediate steps to remove the obstruction created by the private respondent over the petitioner's ancestral passage and ensure free and peaceful access to her residence.

(iii) Restrain the private respondent from carrying on any unauthorized commercial activity, including running a hotel/guest house, in the disputed joint property without lawful registration or sanction.

(iv) Direct the respondent authorities, particularly the District Tourism Officer, Uttarkashi, to duly consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 05.01.2026 (annexure no.11) wherein the petitioner objected to issuance of any tourism registration certificate in favour of the private respondent in respect of the disputed joint property, and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law."

2. From perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it transpires that there is a dispute between the private parties in respect of ancestral property. The respondent-SDM, Barkot, vide order dated 13.11.2025, directed the parties to avail an appropriate civil remedy in respect of their dispute. Till such time as the parties seek redressal from the Civil Court, they were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the construction activities being carried out by respondent no. 7.

3. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking execution of the said order. In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the SDM is only administrative in nature, intended to prevent a breach of peace between the parties. Therefore, the parties should file a civil suit in respect of their respective claims concerning the property.

4. In view of the above, no interference is required in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine.

5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.