SPA/970/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 5387 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL

                    SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.
                                AND
                     SRI JUSTICE N.S. DHANIK, J.

29TH DECEMBER, 2021

SPECIAL APPEAL No. 970 OF 2018

Between:

State of Uttarakhand and others.

...Appellants and

Ram Kumar Gupta.

...Respondent

Counsel for the appellants. : Mr. Pradeep Joshi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Counsel for the respondent. : Mr. B.D. Kandpal, the learned counsel.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

The State of Uttarakhand, through its Principal

Secretary, Irrigation, has preferred this Intra-Court

appeal against the order passed by the learned Single

Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 273 of 2011 dated

29.08.2017.

2. The simple order that has been passed by the

learned Single Judge is as follows :-

"Prima facie, the case of the petitioner is covered under Government Order dated 28.03.2003 read with Government Order dated 15.10.2004. Equals cannot be treated unequally.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 14.01.2011 and 17.01.2011 are quashed and set aside. The Competent Authority is directed to take a fresh decision in view of the Government Orders dated 28.03.2003 and 15.10.2004 within a period of six weeks from today."

3. The learned counsel for the State of

Uttarakhand submits that the respondent-writ petitioner

is not a land oustee and, therefore, he is not entitled to

grant of bhumidhari rights.

4. However, it is not disputed that the

respondent-writ petitioner has land at Pathri Rau. The

said land was acquired by the State of Uttarakhand to

rehabilitate the oustees of Tehri Dam. Though the

petitioner was ousted from five acres of land, he was

given land to an extent of only two acres. Therefore,

the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the

case of the petitioner should be considered as per the

Government Orders dated 28.03.2003 and 15.10.2004.

5. Therefore, the State of Uttarakhand has filed

this Special Appeal.

6. The State Government, being a model

employer and a benevolent landlord, should always be

sensitive and a model litigant. Frivolous Special Appeals

should not be filed by the State Government. It appears

in this case that the respondent-writ petitioner is a land

oustee, and he is being denied the benefit under the

Government Orders dated 28.03.2003 and 15.10.2004

only because he was not a direct land oustee of the

Tehri Dam.

7. In any case, if the State Government has

evicted the respondent-writ petitioner from his property

for rehabilitation of the land oustee of the Tehri Dam,

then also he is entitled to the benefit that is given to the

land oustee of the Tehri Dam.

8. With the aforesaid observation, we come to

the conclusion that there is no merit in this Intra-Court

Appeal. Therefore, the same is, hereby, dismissed.

9. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be

granted to the parties on proper application.

________________ S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

_____________ N.S. DHANIK, J.

Dt: 29th December, 2021 Rahul