MAHENDRA SINGH BATOLA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPPIL/55/2026
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 17th April 2026.
CNR: UKHC010059852026
Filing Number
WPPIL/3143/2026
Filing Date
15-Apr-2026
Registration No
WPPIL/55/2026
Registration Date
15-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )
Sub-Category
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ( 45 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 26-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MAHENDRA SINGH BATOLA
Adv. RAKSHIT JOSHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
2.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Adv. C.S.C.
-
3.MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN
Adv. RAHUL CONSUL
-
4.SDM
Adv. C.S.C.
-
5.NAGAR NIGAM
Adv. C.S.C.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF
WPPIL No. 55 of 2026 - Summary The court disposed of the writ petition challenging encroachments on a water body (talab) at Village Miyanwala, Dehradun, by directing the District Magistrate to examine the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within three months, ensuring all affected parties are heard. The court declined to appoint a court commissioner or issue direct restoration mandates, instead delegating the matter to the administrative authority for review and lawful action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Apr-2026
Fresh Cases For Admission -3
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
-
15-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPPIL/55/2026
WPPIL No. 55 of 2026 - Summary The court disposed of the writ petition challenging encroachments on a water body (talab) at Village Miyanwala, Dehradun, by directing the District Magistrate to examine the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within three months, ensuring all affected parties are heard. The court declined to appoint a court commissioner or issue direct restoration mandates, instead delegating the matter to the administrative authority for review and lawful action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts