Uttarakhand High Court
Hikmat Singh Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 19 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 66 OF 2022
19TH APRIL, 2022
Between:
Hikmat Singh Panwar ...... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others. ...... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel.
Counsel for the State. : Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, the learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
This appeal is directed against final judgment and
order dated 29.03.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 571 of 2022, whereby writ petition
filed by appellant, seeking direction to the Competent
Authority to take decision on his representation for allotment
of land, was dismissed.
2. It is not in dispute that as oustee of Tehri Dam
Project, appellant was allotted two plots, one residential and
another agricultural, at Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in the
year 2013. However, the agricultural plot allotted to him was
1
cancelled, pursuant to Government Order dated 18.11.2013,
on the ground that land allotted to him has been earmarked
as Green Belt, therefore, it could not have been allotted to a
private individual.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as
many as 25 oustees of Tehri Dam Project were allotted
agricultural plots at Pashulok, Rishikesh and all such
allotments were cancelled by the Government Order dated
18.11.2013.
4. Since appellant was not re-allotted any plot after
cancellation of the allotment made earlier, therefore, he filed
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 571 of 2022, seeking the following
reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding respondent No.2 to
forthwith allot the agriculture plot of land in favour of
petitioner and proforma respondent no.3 being Tehri
Dam Project oustees, in lieu of cancellation of the
earlier allotment made on 08.02.2013, vide
cancellation order dated 23.01.2018.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to
take appropriate decision in accordance with law on
the representation dated 26.03.2021 (Annexure No.6
to the writ petition), and representation dated
28.02.2022 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) of
petitioner and proforma respondent no.3 considering
allotment of agriculture plot No.31 at Nirmal Block-A,
Pashulok, Rishikesh, within stipulated period, if
possible within 03 weeks or any appropriate period
which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in facts
and circumstances of the case."
5. By the impugned judgment, writ petition filed by
2
appellant was dismissed by learned Single Judge by holding
that as petitioner has not challenged the order of cancellation
passed against him in 2018, therefore, the reliefs, as claimed,
cannot be granted.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
view taken by learned Single Judge that merely because his
client did not challenge the cancellation order, therefore, he
cannot claim any further relief is erroneous. He further
submits that the allotment was cancelled not because
appellant was not eligible for rehabilitation but on the ground
that land allotted was not suitable for allotment, thus
petitioner's eligibility has not come under cloud.
7. We find force in the submission made on behalf of
appellant. Not challenging the cancellation order will not dis-
entitle appellant from seeking relief of re-allotment in the
facts and circumstances of the case. In the writ petition, he
had sought a direction to the Competent Authority to allot
some other plot of land and also to take decision on
appellant's representation, however, the relief sought was
denied to him for the reason indicated above.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and reasons,
the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2022 is liable to be set-
aside.
9. Accordingly, Special Appeal is allowed and the
impugned judgment dated 29.03.2022 is set-aside.
Respondent no. 2 is directed to consider appellant's
representation 28.02.2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition)
and pass a reasoned order, as early as possible, but not later
than three months from the date of production of certified
3
copy of this order.
10. It goes without saying that all the stakeholders,
including T.H.D.C. shall be heard by respondent no. 2, while
taking decision on appellant's representation.
___________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
______________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dt: 19TH APRIL, 2022
Navin
