State Of Uttarakhand & Others vs Mukand Singh & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State-appellants, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned Standing Counsel for the THDC.

The respondents-writ petitioners filed Writ Petition (M/S) No.1915 of 2006 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Executive Engineer. All the petitioners belong to families displaced by the THDC, and are all residents of Bauradi village, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal; their lands were acquired by the THDC for construction of the Tehri Dam, and they were offered a rehabilitation package, for their rehabilitation and resettlement, besides compensation for the lands acquired from them.

An agreement was entered into between the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal and the Administrator Tehri Dam Project on 15.09.1987, to which, the respondents-writ petitioners were also parties. In terms of the said agreement dated 15.09.1987 the respondents-writ petitioners agreed to forgo their claim for two acres of agricultural land on payment of compensation for the land acquired from them, and on two plots of two hundred sq. mts. each being allotted in their favour at Bauradi. The petitioners were extended such benefits.

The respondents-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that they were also entitled for one more plot of 100 sq.mts. in Dehradun district, as some others, who were also land oustees under the project, were given one such plot.

They, however, did not disclose, in the affidavit filed by them in support of the writ petition, that an agreement was entered into on 15.09.1987, to which they were parties; and, in terms thereof, they had agreed to receive compensation for their lands acquired by the Government and for two plots at Bauradi. They also failed to array the Project Director of the Tehri Dam, who was a party to the agreement dated 15.09.1987, as a respondent in the Writ Petition.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants herein to issue a plot to the respondents-writ petitioners, in Bhaniawala village of Dehradun district, on payment of Rs. 13,000/-. This order was passed by the learned Single Judge, evidently, as he was not made aware of the agreement dated 15.09.1987, to which the respondents-writ petitioners were also parties. We are satisfied that the order under appeal, passed in ignorance of the agreement dated 15.09.1987, must be set-aside on this short ground.

Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would however plead discrimination, and would contend that the respondents-writ petitioners are also entitled for grant of a plot of 200 sq. mts. in Bhaniawala village of Dehradun district in terms of the another policy. We asked the learned counsel to show us, from the order under appeal, whether any such policy was referred to therein. While fairly stating that no such policy is referred to in the order under appeal, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would seek another opportunity for the respondents-writ petitioners to place on record the policy, in terms of which, other persons were granted a plot of 200 sq. mts. in Bhaniawala village of Dehradun district; and if need be to array those, in whose favour such plots were granted, as respondents in the Writ Petition.

We consider it appropriate in such circumstance to set-aside the order under appeal, and to restore the Writ Petition to file.

It is open to the respondents-writ petitioners to file an application to bring on record the facts now stated before us regarding a policy having been framed for grant of one plot of 200 sq. mts. at Bhaniawala village, as also an application to implead those, in whose favour such plots were granted, as party respondents in the Writ Petition.

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned Standing Counsel for the THDC, would submit that several facts were suppressed by the respondent-writ petitioners in the writ affidavit filed by them before the learned Single Judge; and this resulted in the order under appeal being passed. As we have set-aside the order under appeal, and have restored the Writ Petition to file, suffice it to permit the THDC, which shall stand impleaded as the 5th respondents in the Writ Petition to file a counter-affidavit in the Writ Petition placing on record all facts which have now been urged before us.

The Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.