Hikmat Singh Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3541 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Hikmat Singh Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 April, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

                                                           2025:UHC:2506
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                    NAINITAL

          Writ Petition (MS) No. 1854 of 2022
Hikmat Singh Panwar
                                                             ...Petitioner

                                   Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others
                                                         ...Respondents
                             With
              Writ Petition (MS) No. 441 of 2022
Indramani
                                                             ...Petitioner
                                   Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others
                                                         ...Respondents
Presence:
1.    Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Suryakant
Maithani, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPMS No.1854 of 2022.
2.    Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner in the
connected writ petition no. WPMS No. 441 of 2022.
3.    Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State
4.    Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for THDC.

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)

Since both the petitions are for the same cause of action as such with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties both the petitions are being decided together.

2. In both the petitions the petitioners are the displaced persons, who were displaced from old Tehri Town due to the construction of Tehri Dam in district Tehri Gahrwal. For this project the land of old Tehri town and the adjacent village thereto were acquired for the purposes of construction of Tehri Dam.

3. For the purposes of rehabilitating the displaced persons a rehabilitation policy was framed and for their rehabilitation certain land were identified in District Tehri, District Haridwar and District Dehradun.

2025:UHC:2506

4. Undisputedly, both these petitioners are the displaced persons of old Tehri Town and eligible to get their rehabilitation under the rehabilitation policy and after considering their eligibility they were rehabilitated by giving the residential as well as agriculture plot.

5. The petitioner Indramani of WPMS No. 441 of 2022 was allotted two plots i.e. Plot No. 4 for agriculture as well as for residential purposes on 15.02.2013. For agriculture purposes the total land area of this plot measuring 1800 sq. mt. was allotted and for residential 200 sq. mt. was allotted.

6. The aforesaid allotment of Indramani was subsequently cancelled on 18.11.2013 since there was some discrepancy in the procedure of allotment. The order dated 18.11.2013 was challenged in writ petition no. 1502 of 2020, which was disposed of finally on 09.09.2020 by giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and subsequently the representation was rejected on 11.12.2020.

7. Being aggrieved with the order dated 11.12.2020 the petitioner Indramani again preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition (M/S) 1492 of 2021, which was disposed of finally on 02.08.2021. In this petition the specific averment was made that one another displaced person Chatar Singh was allotted the land twice in two different places.

8. After taking into consideration that the Chatar Singh the another displaced person allotted twice the land in two different places, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1492 of 2021 was disposed of finally with a direction to the Director, Rehabilitation to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner and while deciding the same the Director would also hear the heirs of Late Chatar Singh to whom a dwell allotment of Plot No. E 31

2025:UHC:2506 was made. It is relevant to mention here that the Plot No. E31 measuring 1/2 acre is agriculture land.

9. Subsequently, in compliance to the direction of this court by the order dated 02.08.2021 passed in WPMS (M/S) No. 1492 of 2021 the Director Rehabilitation by order dated 23.02.2022 cancelled the allotment of Plot No. E31 measuring 1/2 acre, which was earlier allotted to Chatar Singh. Simultaneously, the petitioner Indramani was also allotted different agriculture plot no. 330 measuring 2 acre and residential plot no. 89 measuring 200 sq. mt. by the same order.

10. Being aggrieved with the order dated 23.02.2022 the instant writ petition has been preferred by Indramani i.e. WPMS No. 441 of 2022 with the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.2.2022 issued by the respondent no. 2-Director of Rehabilitation, Tehri Dam Project, New Tehri only to the extent of rejection of petitioner's representation for Plot No. E-31 Rehabilitation Site-Nirmal Block A, Pashulok, Rishikesh.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 Director of Rehabilitation, Tehri Dam Project, New Tehri to decide the petitioner's representation dated 1.2.2021 after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a specific time frame."

11. The main grievance of the petitioner Indramani is in respect of agriculture plot i.e. plot no. 330 measuring 1/2 acre is that the land is not suitable for the agriculture purposes. The petitioner further prayed in this petition that since the allotment of Chatar Singh in respect of plot no. E31 was cancelled is also a agriculture plot and as such Plot no. 330, which was allotted to him by order dated 23.02.2022 be exchanged with Plot No. E31, since as per the report of Deputy Revenue Officer the agriculture

2025:UHC:2506 land i.e. Plot No. 330 allotted to him by the order impugned is not suitable for agriculture purposes. Learned counsel placed before this court an office memorandum 10.07.2003, wherein, the procedure has been prescribed for exchange of land. By referring condition no. 3 of this Office Memorandum learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Deputy Revenue Officer submits its report that the land of plot no. 330 is not suitable for agriculture purposes despite this, no attempt was made by the respondents for allotting the plot no. E 31, which was earlier allotted to Chatar Singh but subsequently cancelled by the order impugned. Relevant extract regarding conditions of eligibility of Office Memorandum dated 10.07.2003 are quoted herein below:

"1- ik=rk lwph v/kksgLrk{kjh ds vuqeksnu ds mijkUr vf/k"kklh vfHk;Urk fuekZ.k [k.M yks-fu-fo-] ubZ fVgjh }kjk fuxZr dh tk;sxhA 2- vkoaVu ls iwoZ ik=rk ds dzekadksa dks iquZfu/kkZj.k lacfa /kr xzke iz/kku dh lgefr ls fd;k tk ldrk gSA ijUrq vkoaVu fu/kkZfjr ofj;rk dze esa gh fd;k tk;sxkA 3- mi jktLo vf/kdkjh] _f'kds"k }kjk lacfa /kr vf/k"kklh vfHk;Urk ls lgefr ysdj vkoaVu lac/a kh vkns"k tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA"

12. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan submits that though as per condition no. 3 for exchange consent of the Executive Engineer is required but in this case there was no such consent, but since already Deputy Revenue Officer submitted its report that the land of Plot No. 330 is not suitable for agriculture purposes, therefore, the respondent by invoking condition no. 3 of office memorandum dated 10.07.2003 should allot the plot E31 in exchange for agriculture purposes to the petitioner.

13. The Director Rehabilitation Mayur Dixit joined the proceeding through V.C. and apprise to this court that in fact the land allotted to the petitioner Indramani i.e. Plot No. 330 having an area of 2 acre is suitable for agriculture purposes, but taking into consideration the report of the Deputy Revenue Officer dated

2025:UHC:2506 15.07.2023 the land will be made suitable for agriculture purposes from all corner with the assistance of the officials of the THDC and this entire exercise will be completed within six weeks. The suggestion as given by the Director Rehabilitation for the purposes of resolving this dispute is really appreciable. In such an eventuality, the instant writ petition filed by Indramani is disposed of finally with the direction to the Director Rehabilitation to make Plot No. 330 measuring 2 acre for agriculture purpose by taking assistance of the District Administration, Revenue Officials as well as Officials of the THDC. After completing the entire exercise within six weeks the Director, Rehabilitation will give the peaceful possession of Plot No. 330 to the petitioner after measuring the land to ascertain that the area would not be less than two acre.

14. As far as WPMS No. 1854 of 2022 is concerned, which has been preferred by the petitioner Hikmat Singh Panwar, this petitioner was allotted Plot Nos. 16 and 18 on 08.02.2013. Plot No. 16 was residential plot measuring 200 sq.mt. and Plot No. 18 was for agriculture purposes measuring 1/2 acre of land since allotment was in urban area and as per the rehabilitation policy only 1/2 acre of land for agriculture land were allotted in urban area.

15. The possession of both these plots were given to the petitioner "Hikmat Singh Panwar" on 13.11.2013, however, subsequently, allotment of agricultural plot no. 18 area ½ acre was cancelled on 18.11.2013.

16. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WPMS No. 571 of 2022, however, in this petition he has not challenged the order of cancellation and subsequently the writ petition was dismissed on 29.03.2022 and being aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge the petitioner Hikmat

2025:UHC:2506 Singh Panwar preferred Special Appeal No. 66 of 2022 which was allowed on 19.04.2022 and the respondents were directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in respect of the agriculture plot which was earlier allotted but subsequently cancelled on 18.11.2013.

17. Subsequently, in compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 19.04.2022 the respondents decided the representation of the petitioner by observing that his claim will be subject to the decision of the pending WPMS No. 441 of 2022, which was preferred by "Indramani", which is also listed today and now disposed of finally in view of the observation as recorded above.

18. A further reference has been made in the order dated 24.04.2022 that a fresh allotment will carried out as per the lottery system. Being aggrieved with the order dated 24.04.202 instant writ petition has been filed by Hikmat Singh Panwar on the ground that admittedly the petitioner is a displaced person and eligible under the rehabilitation package to get rehabilitation and that was the reason on 08.02.2023 two plots were allotted to him one pertains to the residential other one pertains to the agriculture purposes, however, the allotment in respect of the agriculture land was cancelled.

19. Learned senior counsel Mr. Rajendra Dobhal submits that once the petitioner is treated to be a displaced person then a right is accrued in his favour to get the benefit of rehabilitation, therefore, if for any other reason the allotment of agriculture land was cancelled then in such an eventuality the respondents are under legal obligation to allot another agriculture plot to the petitioner and there is no any justification to keep the claim of the petitioner pending merely on the ground that one of the petition

2025:UHC:2506 preferred by Indramani is pending for consideration before this court.

20. The arguments as advanced by Mr. Rajendra Dobhal have some force since this is undisputed fact that the pettiner is displaced person and earlier the allotment of agriculture land was given to the petitioner but subsequently it was cancelled and if it was cancelled then the respondents are under legal obligation to allot another agriculture land.

21. Keeping the claim of the petitioner pending in respect of the agriculture land on the ground that another petition is pending for adjudication is appears to be unjustifiable. The rehabilitation package is meant for rehabilitating the displaced person, which is a beneficial scheme for those who in fact have been displaced from old Tehri Town in order to complete dream project of the country.

22. The Director Rehabilitation, who joined the proceeding through V.C. apprise to this court that the land earlier allotted to Chatar Singh i.e. Plot No. E-31, which was cancelled later on is still vacant and can be allotted to petitioner "Hikmat Singh Panwar".

23. Learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Kothari for THDC submits that since the decision has already been taken that now the allotment has to be done as per the lottery system, therefore, such a direction cannot be issued for allotment of Plot No. E 31 to the petitioner "Hikmat Singh Panwar". The submission as made by Mr. Sandeep Kothari is outrightly rejected on this premise that once the allotment was done in favour of the petitioner though it was subsequently cancelled therefore a right is accrued in favour of the petitioner to get another allotment. Therefore, at this stage the argument as advanced by Mr. Sandeep

2025:UHC:2506 Kothari cannot be accepted, otherwise it will curtail a right in favour of a person which was accrued in his favour in the year 2013 when the first allotment was made. By any subsequent decision the right which was accrued in favour of a person cannot be taken away, therefore, the decision to this extent by the order impugned is hereby quashed.

24. Now, since the Director Rehabilitation fairly suggest that the Plot No. E 31, which was earlier allotted to Chatar Singh is vacant and can be allotted to the petitioner Mr. Hikmat Singh Panwar.

25. Learned senior counsel Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, who appears for "Hikmat Singh Panwar" fairly accepts the suggestion of the Director and submits that the petitioner is ready to accept Plot No. E 31.

26. On this, the Director Rehabilitation submits that the possession of Plot No. E 31 shall be handed over to petitioner Hikmat Singh Panwar within 15 days from today.

27. Since, now the issue as raised by both the petitioners, who are the displaced person has been resolved in view of the observation and directions as above. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of finally.

                       .                                  (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
                                                             04.04.2025

PR

          DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,




POOJA

2.5.4.20=20de6817a968f6b259137535cd20ae0a abc071792cf3b967c166f1f9777d2df9, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=C1F86C3C515DA418A38C7E1A6 0389068B79D0D8CDF244993ED8CB408A9121F C3, cn=POOJA Date: 2025.04.08 14:55:50 +05'30'