Uttarakhand High Court
Pratap Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 5 August, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1342 of 2017
Pratap Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others. ... Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Petitioner is resident of Village
Parkhal, Patwari Circle Narayan Bagar, Tehsil
Tharali, District Chamoli. By means of this writ
petition, petitioner has sought the following
substantive reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 22.3.2017
(Annexure-12) issued by District
Magistrate.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to grant suitable
compensation to the petitioner as per the
relevant government orders, in lieu of
loss/damaged caused to the petitioner in
natural calamity occurred in June 2013."
2. According to the petitioner, his
residential house, cowshed and also
agricultural land was severely damaged due to
landslide, which struck his village on
27.06.2013. Petitioner applied for
compensation as per the applicable Policy. To
substantiate his claim for compensation,
petitioner relied upon a report submitted by
Revenue Inspector, which is enclosed as
Annexure 4 to the writ petition, in which it is
mentioned that petitioner's immovable
property suffered loss to the tune of Rs.4.00
lakh. The District Magistrate, Chamoli has
rejected petitioner's claim for compensation
vide order dated 22.03.2017, which is under
challenge in this writ petition.
3. The impugned order is on record as
Annexure 12 to the writ petition. The District
Magistrate has disbelieved petitioner's stand
that his property was severely damaged and
has relied upon the report of Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tharali for returning a finding that
there is no sign of damage in the cowshed and
there are some minor cracks in the double
storied residential house belonging to the
petitioner. In the impugned order, District
Magistrate has observed that the report of
Revenue Inspector, relied by the petitioner, is
false and has been submitted in violation of the
Conduct Rules, applicable to Government
servant for which disciplinary proceedings is to
be initiated against the concerned Revenue
Inspector.
4. The Revenue Sub-Inspector, on
whose report petitioner had placed heavy
reliance, has filed a counter affidavit as
respondent no. 5. In para 18 of the counter
affidavit, he has denied the claim of the
petitioner that he had given any report
supporting the claim of the petitioner. Para 18
of the said counter affidavit is extracted
below:-
"18. That the contents of para No. 22, 23 of the
Writ Petition are not admitted, hence denied.
However, it is stated that the document annexed by
the petitioner at page No. 35 of his Writ Petition,
which has not been prepared by the answering
respondent when he has posted as Revenue Sub-
Inspector and also the document annexed at page
No. 35 is not in the writing of the answering
respondent and also does not carry the signature of
the answering respondent and also does not carry the
signature of the answering respondent. Moreover, not
a single photograph has been verified by the
answering respondent. It is submitted that against
the petitioner for preparing a false and fabricated
documents on application have been forwarded by
the answering respondent to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tharali, District Chamoli on dated
31.08.2017 & 16.09.2017 and District Magistrate
Chamoli on dated 04.10.2017, the copies which are
being enclosed herewith as Annexure No. CA-2."
5. Learned State Counsel submits that
as per the report submitted by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tharali, no damage was caused to
the residential house or cowshed of the
petitioner. He further submit that as per the
averments made in the writ petition, PUCCA
residential house of petitioner, consisting of
ten rooms, was damaged due to landslide,
however, photographs enclosed with the writ
petition are in respect of cowshed and
washroom, which are temporary structures.
Thus, the pleadings made in the writ petition
are in variance with the documents /
photographs enclosed with the writ petition.
He further submits that in view of categorical
statement made by respondent no. 5 in his
counter affidavit, the very basis of petitioner's
claim goes away. Learned State Counsel
further submits that even then for the minor
damage caused to the property of the
petitioner, he was given financial aid to the
tune of Rs. 40,000/- from Soldier Welfare
Department and another Rs. 15,000/- from
Village Development Department. Thus, he
submits that whatever little damage was
caused to the property of petitioner has been
adequately compensated by paying
Rs.55,000/- from two different Government
Agencies.
6. This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned State Counsel.
The photographs enclosed with the writ
petition do not support the stand taken by
petitioner that his pucca residential house was
damaged; the enclosed photographs are of
temporary structures and the Revenue Sub
Inspector has categorically stated that the
report relied by petitioner for claiming
compensation, was neither prepared nor
signed by him. Thus, the very basis of
petitioner's claim vanishes in view of the
statement made by Revenue Sub Inspector.
The order passed by District Magistrate
contains detailed reasons for rejecting
petitioner's claim for compensation.
7. This Court while exercising power of
Judicial Review is not inclined to interfere with
the findings of fact recorded by District
Magistrate. Thus, there is no scope for
interference in the matter.
8. The writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
05.08.2024
Navin
