Chandra Sekhar Joshi And Others vs State of Uttarakhand Through Chief Secretary And Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

According to the petitioners, they are residents of Hatsari Tok (Hamlet) of village Haat Block-Peepalkoti, District Chamoli. In the writ petition, they have expressed an apprehension that under the Rehabilitation Policy framed by THDCIL, for "project affected families", petitioners will not get the benefits which are available under National Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy, 2007.

Petitioners have therefore challenged the Rehabilitation Policy of Tehri Hydro Dam Corporation India Limited mainly on the ground that the benefits under the said policy are inferior to National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007.

However in prayer no.(c) of the writ petition, petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to include Hamlet Hatsari of village Haat in the acquisition proceedings.

It is not in dispute that the land was to be acquired for construction of Vishnugad-Peepalkoti Hyrdo Power Project, which was executed by THDCIL, therefore, petitioners had filed this writ petition for better benefits as per the National Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy, 2007. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 by Ms. Manju Rajput, Tehsildar, District Chamoli. In para no.5 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that initially switch yard of the project was proposed to be constructed at Harsali Tok of village Haat; but, in view of opposition by residents of the locality, a decision was taken to change the location of switch yard and accordingly alignment of the tunnel was also changed. It has been further stated that now the tunnel is not passing through Harsali Tok of village Haat, therefore, land of Harsali Tok is not needed for the project.

A separate counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 by Mr. P.P.S Mann, General Manager, Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Limited. In para no.14 (d) of the said affidavit, it has been reiterated that earlier the switch yard was proposed to be constructed over a part of land of Harsali Tok and the main access tunnel to the power house was also passing below Harsali village, however, subsequently, it was decided to shift the location of switch yard and the tunnel to some other place. In para no.20 of the said counter-affidavit, it has been further stated that petitioner nos. 15, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29 and 30 have already received compensation as per the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy formulated by Tehri Hydro Dam Corporation, which is under challenge in the writ petition. In para no.14

(g) of the affidavit, it has been categorically stated that Harsali land is no more required for the project, which is reproduced below:-

"That thus, in the present circumstances, the Harsari land is no more required for the Project. However, as a responsible Corporate Citizen, THDC will mitigate any impact on the Harsari Hamlet due to construction activities."

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 5 and 6, it has been further stated in para no. 14 (e) that out of 35 petitioners, only petitioner nos. 1 and 35 are residents of Harsari Tok of village Haat and all other petitioners are residents of either village Haat or adjoining village Jaisel. Similar statement has been made in para no.5 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

From the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that land of the petitioners is not proposed to be acquired, therefore, they are not affected by Vishnugad-Peepalkoti Hyrdo Power Project, in any manner, whatsoever.

Since the location of switch yard and tunnel has been changed and land of Hatsari/Harsari Tok is not proposed to be acquired, therefore, 'petitioners cannot be termed as "project affected persons". Thus, in the humble opinion of this Court, they have no locus-standi to challenge the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy formulated by Tehri Hydro Dam Corporation India Limited for project affected persons.

In such view of the matter, this Court declines to entertain the challenge thrown to the Rehabilitation Policy of THDCIL.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost.