Shoorbeer Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 24.03.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 734 of 2021,

whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be a resident of Village-Saudmath Uppu, Tehsil-Pratapnagar, District-Tehri Garhwal.

For the purpose of construction of Tehri Dam, the said village was submerged. The petitioner was, therefore, an oustee. Thus, he was eligible for

allotment of an agricultural and residential plot in accordance with the Rural Rehabilitation Policy. Consequently, on 04.11.2009, he was allotted an

agricultural plot of land at Pathri, namely, Plot No. 231 admeasuring two acres. The possession of the said land was handed over to the petitioner on

18.06.2010. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, as soon as he started carrying out his agricultural activities, he discovered that there is a culvert

adjoining his land. During the rainy season, the culvert overflows, whereby a large amount of water enters his agricultural field.

On 08.01.2019, i.e. almost after a decade, the petitioner preferred an application before the Director, Rehabilitation, wherein he prayed that the plot

of the agricultural land allotted to him should be exchanged for another plot of land. The Director, Rehabilitation, marked the petitioner’s

application to the Executive Engineer, Infrastructure (Rehabilitation) Division, Rishikesh. According to the inquiry carried out by the Executive

Engineer, Infrastructure (Rehabilitation) Division, Rishikesh, the concerned Patwari, and the Deputy Revenue Officer, it was discovered that the

petitioner’s grievance is a genuine one. It was further pointed out in the Inquiry Report that since there is some rehabilitation site available at

Roshnabad, District-Haridwar, Plot No. 58A admeasuring ½ Acre could be allotted to the petitioner. However, despite the said finding and the

recommendation made by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1, till date, the petitioner’s land has not been exchanged for the land at

Roshnabad, District-Haridwar. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the learned Single Judge. As mentioned hereinabove, the

learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 24.03.2021. Hence, this Appeal before this Court.

Mr. S.R.S. Gill, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, submits that since the petitioner’s land is annually inundated with water, the

petitioner cannot use the said land for agricultural purpose. Moreover, since the rehabilitation land was available at Roshnabad, District-Haridwar,

therefore, he prayed for his land to be exchanged for a land at Roshnabad, District-Haridwar. Hence, the learned Singe Judge was unjustified in

dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner.

This Court has asked Mr. Gill a pointed query as to why the petitioner waited to raise his grievances for a decade? After all the inundation of his

agricultural field would be a yearly event.

According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had raised his grievance in 2019, but ever since 2019, no favourable order has been passed in his

favour.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, and perused the impugned order.

Admittedly, the land was allotted to the petitioner in 2009, and the possession of the land was given to the petitioner in 2010, yet from 2010, the

petitioner sat quietly over the entire issue. Therefore, the writ petition itself is hit by delay and laches. Moreover, the learned Singe Judge had noticed

the fact that the petitioner is seeking exchange of his land for a land located in Roshnabad, District-Haridwar, where the lands’ prices are sky-

high. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the writ petition is a motivated one.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. This Appeal, being devoid of merit, is

hereby dismissed.

In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.