Uttarakhand High Court
Azeem Ahmad & Others ---Appellants vs Director on 2 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2015
Azeem Ahmad & others ---Appellants
Versus
Director, Rehabilitation/
District Magistrate, Tehri
Garhwal and another --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Anil K. Bisht, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
Writ-petitioner filed this Appeal challenging
dismissal of his Writ Petition (M/S) No. 918 of 2009, vide
judgment and order dated 26.05.2014. In the writ petition,
he has sought the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
17.11.2008 passed by the respondents by which the
claim of the petitioner regarding the commercial land
as well as the housing facility has been rejected and
placed the petitioner in 3rd Category instead of 1st
Category of the displaced person (Annexure No 6 to
the writ petition)
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to grant the
commercial land and housing facility to the petitioner
under rehabilitation policy framed by the respondents
c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to grant Rs.
3,00,000/- as reimbursement to the petitioner
instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-."
2. According to the writ-petitioner, he is a project
affected person, as his workshop, established over a piece
of land admeasuring 1000 square meter in Old Tehri, was
acquired for Tehri Dam Project, therefore, he is entitled for
allotment of a commercial plot and also a housing
accommodation. He approached Grievance Redressal Cell
for allotment of commercial plot and residential
accommodation. His prayer was turned down by Director,
Rehabilitation, vide order dated 17.11.2008. Rejection of
his request for commercial plot and residential
accommodation by Director, Rehabilitation was challenged
by him in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 918 of 2009, which was
dismissed by the impugned judgment, which is reproduced
below:-
"As per the rehabilitation policy, for the purpose of
grant of compensation only those motor vehicle
workshop owners can be treated under Class-I who
were running heavy motor vehicle workshop. There is
absolutely nothing on record that petitioner was
having heavy motor vehicle workshop. Document
produced on record shows that petitioner was
running motor vehicle workshop which was duly
approved for the repairs of the government vehicle.
I find force in the submission of the learned counsel
for the T.H.D.C. that petitioner might be running light
vehicle motor workshop and for this purpose,
compensation of Rs.1 lac was paid to the petitioner
in lieu of the loss of the business. Therefore,
petitioner was rightly categorized under Class-III and
was allotted commercial plot of 250 sq.m.
Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that
petitioner could not produce any document before
the Redressal Forum to the effect that other persons
who were allotted bigger commercial plots in fact,
were having commercial plots of 1000 sq.mt. or
lesser area.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to take contrary
view to the view taken by the Grievances Redressal
Forum. Thus petition fails and is hereby dismissed."
3. Perusal of the record reveals that wife of writ-
petitioner (Smt. Rasda Bano) was allotted House No. 5-A/B-
92 at New Tehri under the Rehabilitation Policy, besides
cash benefit of `2,28,042/- for acquisition of the rented
accommodation in Old Tehri in which writ-petitioner and his
wife were residing. It is also revealed that writ-petitioner
was also allotted a commercial plot, admeasuring 250
square meter in lieu of acquisition of his motor garage,
which fact was not disclosed in the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that his
client is entitled to cash benefit amounting to `3,00,000/-,
which is available to persons enlisted in Ist category, as he
was running a workshop for repair of light and heavy motor
vehicles at Old Tehri. Learned counsel for appellant relied
upon a letter dated 29.12.1981 issued by Government
Inspector (Technical) in the office of Assistant Regional
Transport Officer, Rishikesh. However, when a pointed
query was put to him as to whether the said document was
placed before Grievance Redressal Cell or before learned
Single Judge, he conceded that the said document could not
be produced before Grievance Redressal Cell nor before
learned Single Judge, and it was brought on record with the
review application filed before learned Single Judge.
5. The judgment rendered by learned Single Judge
cannot be faulted for not considering a document, which
was not placed on record before writ court.
6. Learned counsel for appellant then submitted
that it is a case of discrimination, inasmuch as, one
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, a similarly situate person, who was
running a motor garage, was allotted 1969 square meter
land for setting up motor garage. However, in the writ
petition, there is no such averment that Mr. Sudhir Kumar
Jain was allotted 1969 square meter land at some other
place for setting up a motor garage.
7. Learned counsel for appellant contended on the
basis of a document enclosed as Annexure-2 to the
rejoinder affidavit, that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain was allotted
1969 square meter land, however, at item no. 15 of the
said document, which was referred to by learned counsel,
M/s Garhwal Motor Owners Union Ltd. is mentioned and
name of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain is altogether missing.
8. Learned counsel for the THDC submits that
Garhwal Motor Owners Union Ltd. is a company, which runs
bus services in Garhwal Region, therefore, it cannot be
argued that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain is the proprietor of the
said company. He submits that individual bus owners attach
their buses with Garhwal Motor Owners Union Ltd., which
ply the buses on different routes based on the permit given
by Regional Transport Authority / State Transport Authority.
Thus he submits that the allegation that Mr. Jain was given
some benefit, which was not given to writ-petitioner, is
incorrect.
9. We do not find any scope for interference in the
impugned judgment. Learned Single Judge has given valid
reasons for not interfering with the order passed by
Director, Rehabilitation. Appellant claims that he was
entitled to benefits, which are available to persons included
in Category-I, however, as per norms, he was not to be
included in Category-I, and he was rightly placed in
Category-III and was given all benefits, which are available
to a person included in Category-III.
10. Accordingly Special Appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
02.06.2025
Navin
