Jagdamba Prasad Badoni & Others vs Redressal Centre Tehri Bandh Pariyojna And Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

“(a) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21-8-09 (Annexure No. 5) and order dated 23-7-15

(Annexure No. 9) passed by the respondent No. 1 to this writ petition.

(b) Issue a writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot the 500 sq. mt. commercial plot at New Tehri

Town District Tehri Garhwal to the petitioners in lieu of 11 shops of Old Tehri Town District Tehri Garhwal.

According to the petitioners, their father had a commercial building consisting of 11 shops in Old Tehri, which was acquired for construction of

Tehri Dam. Admittedly, petitioners’ father was paid compensation under Land Acquisition Act and was also allotted a shop No. 7D/CC/S-30 at

New Tehri in terms of Rehabilitation Policy.

Grievance of the petitioner is that the Rehabilitation Director had approved allotment of a commercial plot admeasuring 500 square meters to the

petitioners in lieu of acquisition of the aforesaid commercial building, but, subsequently, the sanction given by Rehabilitation Director was kept in

abeyance vide order dated 13.11.2002.

Petitioners approached the Grievance Redressal Cell constituted in terms of order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Grievance Redressal

Cell has rejected the representation filed by the petitioners vide order dated 21.08.2009 by holding that petitioners’ request for allotment of

commercial plot admeasuring 500 square meters cannot be acceded to in view of rehabilitation policy.

In the present case, petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Grievance Redressal Cell and also the order passed by

the Cell on petitioners’ review application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It has come on record that the Central Government constituted Hanumantha Rao Committee for making comprehensive rehabilitation policy for the

persons displaced due to Tehri Dam. Based on the recommendations made by Hanumantha Rao Committee, a rehabilitation policy was framed by the

Central Government, which was issued on 09.12.1998. Photocopy of the said document has been enclosed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit.

Clause 6 of the said document deals with rehabilitation provisions for affected urban families. Hanumantha Rao Committee had recommended that

one constructed shop be given on cost to a shop owner who is not running the shop and for each additional shop owned by the same person but not

run by him/her, he/she may be given Rs. 40,000/-. The decision taken by the Central Government on the said recommendation is extracted below:-

“The recommendation for allotment of one shop, on cost to the shop owners who are not running the shops, is accepted. However, the

recommendation to grant an additional amount of Rs. 40,000/- in lieu of each additional shop owned by the same person and not run by him, is not

accepted, as he has already been paid compensation for the shop, land and structures, and land of the shops is also taken into account by project

authorities while determining the size of residential plot to be allotted to him.

Admittedly, all the 11 shops belonging to petitioners’ father were given on rent and their tenants were running their business from those shops.

Since no member of petitioners’ family was doing business from any of the 11 shops, therefore, in view of policy decision taken by the Central

Government, based on Hanumantha Rao Committee report, petitioners family is entitled to one shop only.

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that one shop has already been allotted to father of the petitioners in terms of

the policy; therefore, petitioners are not entitled to any other benefit in lieu of acquisition of the commercial building belonging to their father. He

further submits that since petitioners were paid adequate compensation for the said property under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, therefore,

the claim made by the petitioners for commercial building is unsustainable.

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 further submits that petitioners’ family has already been allotted a residential plot

admeasuring 300 square meters at Ajabpur Kalan, Dehradun in addition to another residential plot of 300 square meters in New Tehri. He further

submits that all the 11 tenants who were running business from the shops belonging to petitioners’ father are also entitled to a shop each under the

rehabilitation policy.

I have gone through the order passed by the Redressal Forum. The forum has dealt with the matter in great detail and held that in view of the

rehabilitation policy, petitioners are entitled to only one shop, which has already been allotted to them, therefore, claim made by the petitioners for

allotment of commercial plot is without any substance.

Since petitioners claim does not come within the purview of the rehabilitation policy, therefore I find no reason to interfere in the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that one Mr. Bhawani Dutt Bijalwan, who was similarly situate, has been allotted a commercial

plot of 200 square meters in lieu of acquisition of his commercial building consisting of 6 shops, therefore, petitioners are entitled to the similar benefit.

Learned forum has dealt with this aspect of the matter also and has held that in respect of Mr. Bhwani Dutt Bijalwan also, there was a proposal to

allot him a commercial plot, which was never implemented and no order of allotment was in fact passed in favour of Mr. Bijalwan.

Even otherwise also, petitioners cannot claim negative equality by submitting that if policy is violated for another person then it should also be

violated for them for granting some benefits dehors the rehabilitation policy.

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the shop, which was allotted in the name of petitioners’ father, physical

possession thereof has not been handed over to the petitioners so far. If that is so, petitioners shall be at liberty to make a representation to the

Director, Rehabilitation within two weeks’ from today. If such representation is made by the petitioners, the Director, Rehabilitation shall examine

the matter and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with certified

copy of this order.