Shri Yuvraj Kshetri And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2845 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.2708 of 2023

Shri Yuvraj Kshetri and Another                           ....Petitioners

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                         ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. T.S. Bindra and Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocates for the
            petitioners through video conferencing.
            Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder for the State.
            Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.2.

                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant writ petition, the

petitioners seek the following reliefs:-

(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus for commanding the

Respondents, their employees and

instrumentalities directing them to not to

divest and dispossess the Petitioners of

any part of property bearing Khasra no.

67/2 situated at Mauza Arcadia Grant

Pachwa Doon District Dehradun, without

acquisition of the property and payment of

compensation in accordance with the

provisions of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2017 and law.

(ii) Any other writ order or direction which

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

(iii) Award cost of the petition to the

Petitioners.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners

appeared through video conferencing.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are

owner in possession of land bearing Khasra no. 67/2 situated

in Mauza Arcadia Grant Pachwa Doon District Dehradun ("the

property"). The respondents, without any valid acquisition

procedure, are trying to take possession over the property

4. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent no.2, the National Highways Authority of India

("the NHAI"), would submit that the instant petition is quite

premature. He would refer to Annexure No.8 to the writ

petition, and would submit that yet possession has not been

taken. The NHAI would first get a notification issued under

Sections 3(A) and 3(D) of the National Highways Act, 1956,

and only thereafter, the possession of the property, may be

taken in accordance with law.

5. The Court takes on record the statement given

by learned counsel for the respondent no.2/the NHAI.

6. In view of the statement given by learned

counsel for the respondent no.2/NHAI, nothing survives in

this petition. It stands disposed of, accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.09.2023 Ravi Bisht