THDC India Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

Respondent no. 4 before this Court was a displaced person. The displacement occurred due to construction of Tehri Dam in District Tehri Garhwal, where respondent no. 4 was an agriculturist. The land of respondent no. 4 was acquired in the year 1971 and apart from the compensation of the land, the private respondent was also given two acres of land at "Bhaniawala" in District Dehradun. Thereafter in the year 2004 i.e. after a gap of more than 20 years, the private respondent moved an application before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate stating that the land given to him is actually less than two acres. The matter went before the Director, Rehabilitation, who came to the conclusion that land given to the private respondent was less than two acres, and is less by 1322 sq. mtrs., but since this land was not available, in lieu thereof the Director, Rehabilitation allotted a plot of 330.5 sq. mtrs. to the private respondent at Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar vide order dated 26.10.2012.

This order dated 26.10.2012 was withdrawn by the State Government as no approval of the State Government was taken before doing that. Aggrieved, the private respondent had preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2844 of 2013, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 04.06.2014 in terms of its earlier judgment dated 06.05.2014 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2777 of 2013, Dhanpal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and others, where the learned Single Judge made a limited interference by observing as under:-

"Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned Brief Holder appearing for the respondents and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for THDC/intervener, who was permitted to intervene, submitted that rehabilitation has to be made in favour of the displaced person as per the prevailing policy. Both of them further submitted that an appropriate decision shall be taken and case of the eligible displaced person, including the petitioner, shall be examined individually and appropriate land shall be allotted in favour of the petitioner, preferably within six months from today.

Present petition, thus, stands disposed of in the light of the suggestion made by Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for THDC/intervener."

In terms of the said order, the matter was heard again by the Director, Rehabilitation, who again allotted the said land to the petitioner vide order dated 3.03.2015. No reason was assigned by the Director, Rehabilitation as to why this allotment has been done.

This order of fresh allotment in favour of private respondent has been challenged by the THDC, particularly on ground that order dated 03.03.2015 is totally arbitrary.

This time when the writ petition was filed, a learned Single Judge of this Court had passed the following orders on 24.06.2015:-

"In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct Secretary Irrigation, Government of Uttarakhand to initiate inquiry into the matter and to find out as to how allotment of additional land and thereafter allotment at Haridwar was made in favour of respondent No. 4. Report of the inquiry shall be filed alongwith the counter affidavit. I further direct that till further orders, status quo qua the possession and nature of the property, in question, shall be maintained and no third party interest shall be created."

Now the State Government has annexed the inquiry report, which is annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1. In the inquiry, which has been conducted by the Revenue Authorities in presence of the petitioner as well as private respondent, it has clearly come that the land which was presently in possession of the private respondent is somewhat less, but at the same time it has also been recorded that the co-sharers i.e. the brothers of the private respondent, namely, Shyam Lal and Chandra Prakas who are also son of Sri Satya Prasad like the petitioner are in possession of the property which is over and above what was allotted to them. Therefore, the encroachment on the property of the private respondent, if any, is by the brothers of the private respondent. Moreover, in the inquiry it has also come that subsequent to the allotment, plotting of 0.6976 hectare of land has been done and has been sold to 17 different persons by the private respondent, including the present petitioner.

Under these circumstances, it is absolutely clear that private respondent is not in the need of the land, as there is a clear cut finding that he has even sold the property, which was given to him, to 17 different persons. Therefore, the allotment of land in favour of private respondent by the order dated 3.03.2015 is absolutely arbitrary. In case he has any grievance, it should be with his brothers who have evidently encroached upon his land, as per the report.

Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 03.03.2015 passed by the Director, Rehabilitation is set aside.