Shri Bhajan Ashram vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3266 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.1157 of 2023

Shri Bhajan Ashram                                          ....Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                      ....Respondent

Present:-
            Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Bharat Tewari, Advocates for the
            petitioner.
            Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.

                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner

seeks the following reliefs:-

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of mandamus directing the

respondents to pay adequate

compensation to the petitioner on

account of complete destruction of

Bhajan Ashram building/property built

by the petitioner on leased land at

Kedarnath Puri, in the 2013 calamity and

also on account of the demolition of the

building of the petitioner and to provide

alternate land to the petitioner for

carrying out the ashram activities in the

said area.

(ii) To issue any other suitable Order or

Direction as this Hon'ble court may deem

fit and proper under the facts and

circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award the cost of the petition to the

petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was

granted lease of 5 Nali land in Kedarnath ("the land"). The

petitioner had constructed an Ashram on that place. In the

year 2013, due to floods in Kedarnath, the Ashram of the

petitioner was partially destroyed, and, subsequently, it was

completely demolished by the State authorities to lay road in

the said area. Therefore, compensation is sought. It is also

the case of the petitioner that, in fact, the lease granted to the

petitioner was rejected on 21.08.2015, by the Addiitonal

Commissioner, Rudraprayag, in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2015,

State Vs. Kedarnath Bapodia, ("the case"). The petitioner

challenged the order dated 21.08.2015 passed in the case in a

revision, which was dismissed on 12.01.2022, by the Board

of Revenue, Dehradun.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that petitioner's property, the lease land was destroyed by the

floods in Kedarnath. Subsequently, it was demolished, but no

compensation has been granted. It is also argued that, in fact,

in the year 2015, the lease granted in the favour of the

petitioner had been cancelled by the respondent no.2, the

District Magistrate, Rudraprayag. That order was

unsuccessfully challenged in the revision. Now, a writ petition

is pending against those orders, by which the lease of the

petitioner was cancelled.

5. Reference has been made to certain Government

Orders, which are with regard to rehabilitation and

compensation.

6. Admittedly, the floods affected the Kedarnath

Dham in the year 2013. The lease of the petitioner was

cancelled by the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate,

Rudraprayag, on 21.08.2015. The order has been filed as

Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. It reveals that the lease

has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was

using the premises for commercial purposes. The order dated

21.08.2015 reveals that, in fact, the Ashram was not

destroyed by the floods. In his objections filed in the case, the

petitioner had admitted that some portion of the leased land

was affected by the flow of river Saraswati. Therefore, some

workers were accommodated in the leased premises, so as to

raise a wall, which means that the petitioner admits that the

Ashram was not destroyed in the floods.

7. In view of it, there is no question of

rehabilitation and compensation. The petitioner's lease has

been cancelled. That order was challenged in the revision, and

it is stated now that a writ petition is pending. Therefore,

there is no reason to entertain the writ petition. It deserves to

be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.10.2023 Ravi Bisht