SPA/209/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2930 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                           AT NAINITAL
      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH
                           CHAUHAN

                                   AND

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA


                   SPECIAL APPEAL No. 209 OF 2021

                         9TH AUGUST, 2021


     Between:

     Shoorbeer Singh                                    ...Appellant.


     and


     State of Uttarakhand and others.                ...Respondents


     Counsel for the appellant:          Mr.    S.R.S.            Gill,
                                         Advocate.

     Counsel for the respondents         :Mr. S.S. Chaudhary,
                                         learned Brief Holder for
                                         the      State        of
                                         Uttarakhand.



     The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

           The petitioner has challenged the legality of the

order dated 24.03.2021, passed by the learned Single

Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 734 of 2021, whereby

the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition

filed by the petitioner.


2.         Briefly, the facts of the case are that the

petitioner claims to be a resident of Village-Saudmath

                                     1
 Uppu, Tehsil-Pratapnagar, District-Tehri Garhwal.         For

the purpose of construction of Tehri Dam, the said

village was submerged.       The petitioner was, therefore,

an oustee.    Thus, he was eligible for allotment of an

agricultural and residential plot in accordance with the

Rural   Rehabilitation    Policy.        Consequently,     on

04.11.2009, he was allotted an agricultural plot of land

at Pathri, namely, Plot No. 231 admeasuring two acres.

The possession of the said land was handed over to the

petitioner on 18.06.2010. Furthermore, according to the

petitioner, as soon as he started carrying out his

agricultural activities, he discovered that there is a

culvert adjoining his land. During the rainy season, the

culvert overflows, whereby a large amount of water

enters his agricultural field.


3.      On 08.01.2019, i.e. almost after a decade, the

petitioner preferred an application before the Director,

Rehabilitation, wherein he prayed that the plot of the

agricultural land allotted to him should be exchanged for

another plot of land. The Director, Rehabilitation, marked

the petitioner's application to the Executive Engineer,

Infrastructure    (Rehabilitation)    Division,     Rishikesh.

According to the inquiry carried out by the Executive

Engineer,     Infrastructure     (Rehabilitation)    Division,

Rishikesh, the concerned Patwari, and the Deputy


                                 2
 Revenue Officer, it was discovered that the petitioner's

grievance is a genuine one.                 It was further pointed out

in   the    Inquiry        Report   that         since   there      is        some

rehabilitation      site    available       at     Roshnabad,        District-

Haridwar, Plot No. 58A admeasuring ½ Acre could be

allotted to the petitioner. However, despite the said

finding     and     the      recommendation              made        by        the

respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1, till date, the

petitioner's land has not been exchanged for the land at

Roshnabad, District-Haridwar.                Therefore, the petitioner

filed the present writ petition before the learned Single

Judge.     As mentioned hereinabove, the learned Single

Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the impugned

order dated 24.03.2021. Hence, this Appeal before this

Court.


4.         Mr. S.R.S. Gill, the learned counsel for the

appellant-petitioner, submits that since the petitioner's

land is annually inundated with water, the petitioner

cannot use the said land for agricultural purpose.

Moreover, since the rehabilitation land was available at

Roshnabad, District-Haridwar, therefore, he prayed for

his land to be exchanged for a land at Roshnabad,

District-Haridwar. Hence, the learned Singe Judge was

unjustified    in     dismissing     the         writ    petition        of    the

petitioner.


                                        3
 5.       This Court has asked Mr. Gill a pointed query as

to why the petitioner waited to raise his grievances for a

decade? After all the inundation of his agricultural field

would be a yearly event.


6.       According to the learned counsel, the petitioner

had raised his grievance in 2019, but ever since 2019,

no favourable order has been passed in his favour.


7.       Heard    the      learned    counsel         for    the

appellant/petitioner, and perused the impugned order.


8.       Admittedly,    the   land   was   allotted     to   the

petitioner in 2009, and the possession of the land was

given to the petitioner in 2010, yet from 2010, the

petitioner sat quietly over the entire issue.     Therefore,

the writ petition itself is hit by delay and laches.

Moreover, the learned Singe Judge had noticed the fact

that the petitioner is seeking exchange of his land for a

land located in Roshnabad, District-Haridwar, where the

lands' prices are sky-high. The learned Single Judge was

of the opinion that the writ petition is a motivated one.


9.       For the reasons stated above, this Court does

not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned

order.   This Appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby

dismissed.




                                4
 10.           In sequel thereto, pending application, if

any, also stands disposed of.


11.           No order as to costs.



                  _____________________________
                  RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.


                                    ___________________
                                    ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 9th August, 2021 Rathour