Hikmat Singh Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

This appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 29.03.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 571 of 2022, whereby writ petition filed by appellant, seeking direction to the Competent Authority to take decision on his representation for allotment of land, was dismissed.

It is not in dispute that as oustee of Tehri Dam Project, appellant was allotted two plots, one residential and another agricultural, at Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in the year 2013. However, the agricultural plot allotted to him was cancelled, pursuant to Government Order dated 18.11.2013, on the ground that land allotted to him has been earmarked as Green Belt, therefore, it could not have been allotted to a private individual.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as many as 25 oustees of Tehri Dam Project were allotted agricultural plots at Pashulok, Rishikesh and all such allotments were cancelled by the Government Order dated 18.11.2013.

Since appellant was not re-allotted any plot after cancellation of the allotment made earlier, therefore, he filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 571 of 2022, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No.2 to forthwith allot the agriculture plot of land in favour of petitioner and proforma respondent no.3 being Tehri Dam Project oustees, in lieu of cancellation of the earlier allotment made on 08.02.2013, vide cancellation order dated 23.01.2018.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the representation dated 26.03.2021 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition), and representation dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) of petitioner and proforma respondent no.3 considering allotment of agriculture plot No.31 at Nirmal Block-A, Pashulok, Rishikesh, within stipulated period, if possible within 03 weeks or any appropriate period which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.”

By the impugned judgment, writ petition filed by appellant was dismissed by learned Single Judge by holding that as petitioner has not challenged the order of cancellation passed against him in 2018, therefore, the reliefs, as claimed, cannot be granted.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by learned Single Judge that merely because his client did not challenge the cancellation order, therefore, he cannot claim any further relief is erroneous. He further submits that the allotment was cancelled not because appellant was not eligible for rehabilitation but on the ground that land allotted was not suitable for allotment, thus petitioner’s eligibility has not come under cloud.

We find force in the submission made on behalf of appellant. Not challenging the cancellation order will not dis-entitle appellant from seeking relief of re-allotment in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the writ petition, he had sought a direction to the Competent Authority to allot some other plot of land and also to take decision on appellant’s representation, however, the relief sought was denied to him for the reason indicated above.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2022 is liable to be set-aside.

Accordingly, Special Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2022 is set-aside. Respondent no. 2 is directed to consider appellant’s representation 28.02.2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and pass a reasoned order, as early as possible, but not later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

It goes without saying that all the stakeholders, including T.H.D.C. shall be heard by respondent no. 2, while taking decision on appellant’s representation.