Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 253 (UTT)

MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-06-04

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. In all these writ petitions, identical questions of fact and law are involved, therefore, all these writ petitions were taken up together for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Plots were allotted to all the petitioners vide different orders passed in the 1st half of the year 2013. All the petitioners claimed that possession of the plots allotted to them were delivered to the petitioners and thereafter few of them have raised constructions thereon. 3. Undisputedly, State Government, vide order dated 25.10.2012, was pleased to issue directions that no allotment would be made in favour of the displaced persons and no exchange of the allotted land would be permitted without prior permission of the State Government. 4. Undisputedly, vide order dated 26th October, 2013, Government was pleased to direct that all the allotments/ exchange made in violation of the order dated 25.10.2012 without prior approval of the Government would stand revoked and status quo would be maintained on the spot. 5. Meanwhile, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 64 of 2013 was filed before the Division Bench of this Court pointing out certain illegalities and irregularities in the matter of allotments in favour of the oustees from the Tehri Dam Area. In the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 64 of 2013, an affidavit was filed on behalf of T.H.D.C. Paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the T.H.D.C. reads as under :- “That vide/Order Office Memo No. 3225/II/2013 dated 26.10.2013, copy of which is enclosed herewith as Annexure No.CA-1, the Government of Uttarakhand through Secretary Irrigation has cancelled the irregular allotments of land made by Respondent No.4 i.e. Director (Rehabilitation). The said Office Memo further contemplates that status quo w.r.t. the disputed places shall be maintained. Further, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand has issued direction to Commissioner (Garhwal Mandal) to act as the Enquiry Officer for investigation of the irregular allotments. In view of the same, the present Writ Petition has become infructuous.” 6. The said Office Memo further contemplates that status quo w.r.t. the disputed places shall be maintained. Further, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand has issued direction to Commissioner (Garhwal Mandal) to act as the Enquiry Officer for investigation of the irregular allotments. In view of the same, the present Writ Petition has become infructuous.” 6. From the perusal of paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed by the T.H.D.C., it is revealed that order dated 26.10.2013, passed by the Irrigation Department, Government of Uttarakhand, cancelling all the allotments made in violation of the order dated 25.10.2012 with the further stipulation to maintain status quo on the spot was placed before the Division Bench. Perusal of the order dated 20.12.2013, passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 64 of 2013, would reveal that Division Bench, while placing reliance on the order passed by the Irrigation Department, Government of Uttarakhand dated 26.10.2013, was pleased to drop the PIL. In my considered opinion, in view of the fact that order dated 26.10.2013 was accepted by the Division Bench hearing the PIL, therefore, order dated 26.10.2014 stands approved by the Division Bench. 7. This Court in Writ Petition No. 2777 of 2013 (M/S), Dhanpal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, decided on 06.05.2014, was pleased to uphold the impugned orders dated 25.10.2012 26.10.2013 and 18.11.2013. All these three orders are under challenge in these writ petitions as well. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the order dated 06.05.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 2777 of 2013 (M/S), Dhanpal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, all the three impugned orders are hereby upheld. 8. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel, appearing for the T.H.D.C. and Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State stated that petitioners of Writ Petition Nos. 2715 of 2013, 2758 of 2013, 2759 of 2013 and 2760 of 2013 are real brothers and nephew and they were having joint family at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, they all were forming one unit and, thus, are not entitled for allotment of separate plots. 9. 2715 of 2013, 2758 of 2013, 2759 of 2013 and 2760 of 2013 are real brothers and nephew and they were having joint family at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, they all were forming one unit and, thus, are not entitled for allotment of separate plots. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that few of the petitioners have already raised construction over the plots allotted to them, therefore, while considering the matter afresh about the entitlement of the allotment, in the event petitioners are found eligible for the allotment, preference should be given to the petitioners for the plots earlier allotted to them in view of the fact that they have raised construction thereon. 10. Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State, and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel, appearing for the T.H.D.C. submitted that cases of the petitioners shall be examined individually in accordance with law, as directed by this Court in the case of Dhanpal Singh (Supra) and appropriate decision shall be taken thereon preferably within six months from today. Both the counsel fairly submitted that if petitioners are found eligible for the allotment and it is noticed that petitioners have raised construction over the plot earlier allotted to them, preference would be given for the plots which were earlier allotted. 11. Present petitions thus stand disposed of in the light of statements made by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel, appearing for the T.H.D.C. and Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State. Meanwhile, parties shall maintain status quo qua the nature of the properties and, meanwhile, no third party interest shall be created over the plots involved in the present writ petitions.