Uttarakhand High Court
Dhirendra Pal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1459 of 2023
Dhirendra Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Additional C.S.C. for the State.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to
5.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks
the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing to the respondents to
allot a shop in accordance with the options
invited by respondent UJVNL on 18.03.2010
and 16.01.2012 considering that petitioner
has not received monetary compensation and
further he shops are already under
construction.
(ii) Issue any other order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
(iii) Award cost of the petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent
no.2 Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ujjwaal Bhawan,
Maharani Bagh, GMS Road Dehradun ("UJVNL") under the
Maneri Bhali Dam Project constructed a lake for the project
in Joshiyara and Gyansu, District Uttarkashi. For this
purpose, a list of the residents of the area was prepared and
certain assurance was given to them in terms of giving a shop
in the shopping complex. But, it is the grievance of the
petitioner that such shop yet not been given to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the respondent no.2 UJVNL had assured that a shop
shall also be given to such displaced persons in the shopping
complex that will be constructed by the respondent no.2
UJVNL, but a shop has not been given.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 UJVNL
would submit that, in fact, total 60 persons were affected.
Out of them, 59 did not opt for shop, they took money in lieu
thereof. Therefore, shopping complex could not be
constructed. He would submit that there was only one
person, i.e. the petitioner who has opted for shop. For that
purpose, the complex could not be constructed. The
petitioner was offered money, but he was not accepting it. He
would refer to Annexure 16, the reply of UJVNL to argued
that this communication dated 11.06.2021 of the respondent
no.2 UJVNL makes the things clear.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that perhaps the respondent no.2 UJVNL is still constructing
some shopping complex, therefore, the case of the petitioner
may be considered for allotting a shop to the petitioner in
that complex.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 UJVNL
would submit that he has already got specific instructions.
The respondent no.2 UJVNL is not going to construct any
shopping complex in near future.
8. If a shopping complex was to be constructed in the
year 2010 for 60 persons, out of which 59 persons have not
opted for shops and the respondent no.2 UJVNL has not
constructed the shopping complex, there action cannot be
said to be arbitrary, illegal or rational. All the other 59
persons who were affected, according to the learned counsel
for the petitioner have received money in lieu of the shop that
was to be given to them in the shopping complex. No
shopping complex has been constructed. A statement is given
that in future also, the respondent no.2 UJVNL is not going
to construct any shopping complex. Therefore, this Court in
this petition may not direct the respondent no.2 UJVNL to
allot a shop to the petitioner in the shopping complex, which,
in fact, has never been constructed and which, as stated, is
not proposed to be constructed in the near future.
9. With these observations, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.08.2023
Jitendra
