Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 248 (UTT)

MAYA RAM (DECEASED) v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-06-02

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 01.05.2009, passed by the Grievances Redressal Forum, Tehri Dam Project, New Tehri, which was constituted pursuant to the direction issued by Hon’ble Apex Court dated 24.4.2007, consisting of Shri Rameshwar Singh, Retired Addl. District Judge and Collector, Tehri Garhwal. 2. Undisputedly, shop of the petitioner was taken from the possession of the petitioner and that shop had submerged. Undisputedly, petitioner was allotted one shop bearing F-28 in Open Shopping Market, New Tehri in lieu of the shop occupied by the petitioner which was submerged in the water. Undisputedly, no cash compensation was paid to the petitioner for the shop wherein petitioner was running grocery business before taking over the shop from the petitioner. 3. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the T.H.D.C. submits that since there seems to be no land acquisition proceeding, therefore, petitioner was not paid any cash compensation in view of the fact that no award was ever passed. He further contends that in view of the Government Order dated 7th July, 2010, petitioner is not entitled for any cash compensation. 4. In view of the admitted fact that petitioner was running the grocery shop in Tehri town and shop was taken from the possession of the petitioner and shop was submerged in the water and petitioner was allotted shop F-28 in Open Shopping Market in New Tehri, petitioner is also entitled for the cash compensation for the shop which cannot be denied to the petitioner on hyper technical grounds. 5. As far as residential house is concerned, petitioner’s case is that petitioner was residing in a house owned by Shri Kashiram Dobhal as a tenant. Having perused the impugned order, I do not find any justification to take contrary view to the view taken by the learned Forum that petitioner could not prove that he was in occupation of the house, in question, as tenant. Therefore, no interference is called for in the findings of the learned Forum as far as it relates to the residential house. 6. However, cash compensation should be paid to the petitioner for the shop taken from the petitioner which was submerged in the water. Matter needs to be remitted to the Forum for adjudication on the issue. 7. Therefore, no interference is called for in the findings of the learned Forum as far as it relates to the residential house. 6. However, cash compensation should be paid to the petitioner for the shop taken from the petitioner which was submerged in the water. Matter needs to be remitted to the Forum for adjudication on the issue. 7. Consequently, impugned order is quashed as far as it relates to the payment of compensation for the shop which was taken from the petitioner and was submerged in the water. 8. Therefore, writ petition is allowed. Matter is remitted to the learned Forum. Learned Forum shall decide the quantum of compensation petitioner is entitled for for the shop which was taken from the possession of the petitioner and submerged in the water. Entire exercise shall be completed by the Forum within 90 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before the Forum.