Kundan Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1359 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Kundan Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  WPMS No.1241 of 2023
                                  Kundan Singh and another                                  ............Petitioners
                                                              Vs.
                                  State of Uttarakhand
                                  and another                                              ..........Respondents

                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the petitioners.

2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State/respondent nos.1, 2 and 6.

3. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Manoj Kumar, C.G.S.C.s' for the Union of India/respondent nos.3, 4 and 5.

4. The dispute in the present writ petition is of alleged damages caused by the respondent-Union of India to the agricultural land of the petitioners admeasuring 44 Nali approx during construction of Tawaghat-Dipti motor road by B.R.O.

5. This Court has directed the respondent-B.R.O. to arrive at a settlement with the petitioners so far as payment of damages is concerned.

6. B.R.O. has come up with an offer to pay a lump sum payment of ₹13,00,000/- to the petitioners for the damages caused to their property.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not satisfied with the said amount of damages on the ground that a joint survey was conducted by the State Government on 07.12.2025 wherein the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had assessed the damages caused to the petitioners to the tune of ₹62,52,250/-, but the respondent-B.R.O. submits that the assessment made by the State is on a very higher side while according to petitioners the assessment made by the

B.R.O. is on the rates which were applicable in the year 1995-96.

8. It is submitted by the petitioner that the inflation index has risen significantly over the last 30 years, therefore, the assessment of the damages by Revenue Department was correct.

9. But there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent-B.R.O. to terms of the settlement/final amount, therefore, the matter can be sent to the High Court Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of settlement between the parties.

10. Accordingly the matter is sent to the Mediation for Nation 2.0 before this High Court Mediation Centre.

11. The matter will be fixed on 24.03.2026 before the High Court Mediation Centre on which date the responsible officer of the B.R.O., and the petitioners shall remain present before the Mediator concerned at 11:00 P.M. so that amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties so far as damages payable to the petitioner is concerned.

12. It would be open for the Mediator concerned to convene the settlement meetings between the parties as he feels conducive for the settlement. The mediation report shall be submitted before this Court within next four weeks.

13. List this case on 29.04.2026.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 23.02.2026 SK