Om Prakash & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 2200 Del

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                    SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2014
Om Prakash & others                                           ............Appellants.

                                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others.                              ............Respondents.
Mr. Kiran Babu, Mr. B.S. Rawat and Mr. Manish, Advocates for the appellants.
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1.
Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, Advocate for respondent no. 4.


Coram:           Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
                 Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.

Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In the writ petition, appellants had sought for many a reliefs, including the relief not to demolish two Samadhies. The writ petition has been disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to the writ petition that they shall confine their activities over the land, which has been acquired by due process of law. In relation to construction of pedestrian crossing, permission has been granted to make an appropriate representation before the appropriate Authority. In addition thereto, a direction has been given upon respondent no. 4, who is a private respondent, to utilize the compensation amount strictly as per the resolution of the trust to fulfill the object of the trust. In the Appeal, it is being contended that respondent no. 4 is not entitled to receive the compensation amount and, accordingly, is not entitled to utilize any part thereof. Therefore, there is dispute as to the title to the compensation amount. This can only be sorted out upon filing of a civil suit. The learned Judge, while rendering the judgment under Appeal, proceeded on the basis that the Samadhies are situate on the land beyond the land, which has been acquired. Appellants are also contesting the same in the Appeal. In the event, the Samadhies are within the land acquired, the object of acquisition being widening of the road, the Samadhies have to go. In the event, appellants have any sentiments pertaining to those Samadhies, it shall be open to the appellants to approach respondent no. 2 to permit the appellants to remove the Samadhies to such place, which the appellants own. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that they belong to

Scheduled Caste community, have no money and, accordingly, movement of the Samadhies should be made by the State. The State being a secular State, it cannot undertake any work pertaining to any religion whatsoever. It is the religious sentiment of the appellants. If they want to continue such religious belief in the Samadhies, they have to spend money. We cannot ask the State to waste one single penny belonging to it for the purpose of pampering the religious belief of the appellants. Insofar as, construction of the pedestrian crossing is concerned, time to make representation is extended by three more weeks from today.

2. With the direction as above, the Appeal is disposed of.

      (V.K. Bist, J.)                        (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
                          01.05.2014
Rathour