WPMS/438/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 1492 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                    AT NAINITAL
           ON THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
                            BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 438 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Ashad Singh.                                             ...Petitioner
     (By Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate)

AND:
Director, Rehabilitation Tehri
Dam Project and others.                             ...Respondents
     (By Mr. H.M. Raturi, Deputy Advocate General for the
     State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr.
     Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent no. 3)


                       JUDGMENT

Petitioner's land was acquired for Tehri Hydro Dam Project and he was paid compensation as per Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioner staked claim for getting benefit under Rehabilitation Policy. Rehabilitation Policy provides for various benefits, including allotment of alternate land to eligible persons.

2. Petitioner's claim for benefit under Rehabilitation Policy was rejected by Director, Rehabilitation vide order dated 01.03.2011. Petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1469 of 2014. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated

12.09.2019, the order passed by Director, Rehabilitation was set aside and the matter was remanded back to reconsider petitioner's case in the light of reports submitted by Patwari and Naib Tehsildar. The judgment dated 12.09.2019 was challenged in Appeal by T.H.D.C. India Ltd. by filing Special Appeal No. 1026 of 2019. In terms of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1026 of 2019, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1469 of 2014 was restored to the file of this Court, which is listed today before this Court, however, before the decision in Special Appeal No. 1026 of 2019, Director, Rehabilitation has reconsidered petitioner's claim in terms of the order dated 12.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1469 of 2014, which is under challenge in this writ petition. By the said order, petitioner's claim has been rejected, by holding that he is not eligible as per Rehabilitation Policy for allotment of alternate land.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order passed by Writ Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1469 of 2014 was set aside in Appeal by Division Bench of this Court, therefore, Director, Rehabilitation was not justified in taking any decision in the matter. He further submits that Director, Rehabilitation should have waited for decision in the said writ petition and the same has been restored to file of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 also concedes to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the order

impugned in this writ petition might have been passed due to ignorance about pendency of Special Appeal.

5. Since the order impugned in this writ petition has been passed on the strength of a judgment, which has been set aside, therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 is also liable to be set aside.

6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 passed by Director, Rehabilitation is set aside.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan