Uttarakhand High Court
General Manager vs Prem Singh Panwar & Others on 29 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3239-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J
SPECIAL APPEAL No.764 of 2017
General Manager, Pariyojna THDC Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Prem Singh Panwar & others ...Respondents
With
SPECIAL APPEAL No.762 of 2017
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sona Devi & others ...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel.
Counsel for State Mr. G.S. Negi, learned DAG.
Counsel for respondent no.1 Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J)
Since common question of facts are involved
in these appeals, therefore, they are being heard and
decided together. However, for the sake of brevity facts
of Special Appeal No.764 of 2017, alone are being
considered and discussed.
2. Objection has not been filed to the delay
condonation application (CLMA No.12827 of 2017). For
the reasons indicated in the delay condonation
application, we condone the delay of 1 day in filing the
appeal. Delay condonation application is allowed.
2025:UHC:3239-DB
3. Special Appeal No.764 of 2017 is filed
challenging the judgment dated 27.07.2017 passed by
learned Single Judge in WPMS No.892 of 2010. The
impugned judgment is extracted below:-
"Petitioner has already raised a dispute before the
Grievance Redressal Cell. The case of the petitioner
was rejected vide the impugned order. However, all
the facts pleaded by the petitioner before the Cell
have not been taken into consideration concerning
the left out properties. The Cell was required to
look into the law and entire facts before
determining the lis. The Cell could not be oblivious
of the fact that the petitioner has already lost his
land for the construction of Tehri Dam Project in
larger public interest.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed.
Orders, under challenge in these petitions, are set
aside. As a special case, the matter is remanded
back to the Grievance Redressal Cell, with the
direction to decide the matter by passing a
detailed/speaking order within three months from
today."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
by the impugned judgment learned Single Judge has
remanded the matter to the Grievance Redressal Cell,
which was constituted in terms of interim order passed
by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.22895 of 2005, and
other connected SLPs, and after decision in those SLPs,
the Grievance Redressal Cell became non-existent. He
submits that all disputes raised by land owners
regarding their rehabilitation/compensation are now
being considered by Director Rehabilitation, therefore,
the impugned judgment may be modified and Director,
Rehabilitation may be asked to take decision in the
matter.
2025:UHC:3239-DB
5. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent submits that he has no
objection if the Director, Rehabilitation is asked to take
decision in the matter.
6. Accordingly, we modify the judgment dated
27.07.2017 passed by learned Single Judge and in place
of "Grievance Redressal Cell", "Director, Rehabilitation"
is directed to take decision on the application filed by
respondents for benefits under Rehabilitation Policy.
7. In view of the above, the special appeals are
disposed of.
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J.
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt:29th April, 2025
NR/
