AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 245 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
According to the petitioners, their land was acquired for Tehri Dam Project. It is not disputed that petitioners have received the compensation, which was determined as per provision s of Land Acquisition Act.
According to the petitioners, they have not been given benefits of Rehabilitation Policy for which they have made a representation to the Competent Authority on 03.08.2018. Since no decision has been taken on their representation, therefore, petitioners have approached this Court seeking direction to the Competent Authority to decide their representation.
Mr. Aakib Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in view of the subsequent event that have taken place, submits that petitioners may be permitted to make fresh representation and the Competent Authority may be directed to take decision within some stipulated time frame.
Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for THDC submit that they have no objection if petitioners are permitted to make fresh representation.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a joint representation to respondent no. 2. If petitioners make fresh representation within three weeks' from today, the Director, Rehabilitation Tehri Dam Project/respondent no. 2 shall look into their representation and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, as early as possible but not later than nine months from the date of production of such representation along with certified copy of this order.