Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 870 (UTT)

Israr Ahmed v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-23

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist J. Heard Mr. B.S. Adhikari and Mrs. Seema Sah, Advocates for the petitioners. 2. Since the controversy involved in both the petitions is of similar nature and the facts of both the cases are identical, both the petitions are being decided by a common judgment. 3. Petitioners have approached this Court for the following relief:- “Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Notices (Annexure-1) qua the petitioners.” 4. In brief, case of the petitioners is as follows:- Petitioners and many other persons were allotted small residential houses in Ram Ganga Project for construction of dam at Kalagarh. Later, when Ram Ganga Project was completed, the matter went to the Supreme Court in the year 1995 for getting the colony of Kalagarh vacated as it was adjacent to the protected area of Corbet National Park. The Supreme Court has transferred the matter to National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Respondent no.1 filed affidavit for rehabilitation of occupiers of Kalagarh Colony. On 26.07.2016 National Green Tribunal passed an order that “the structures in the protected area should be demolished without any further delay now”. In pursuance of the order of National Green Tribunal, respondent no.1 issued direction to respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Pauri on 11.08.2016 and District Magistrate vide letter dated 19.08.2016 instructed the Director, Corbet Tiger Reserve to demarcate the protected area. In another writ petition no.869 of 2015 filed by some of Kalagarh residents, there was also a stand for rehabilitation. Pursuant to the rehabilitation policy of State of Uttarakhand, occupiers were called to submit their affidavits as “land less person”. Out of 964 occupiers, 213 occupiers (families) have already given their affidavits and rest of the families made request to accept their affidavits being land less person. But respondent no.3 without accepting their affidavits and without giving them an opportunity, issued impugned eviction notices on 15.10.2016, without following the rehabilitation scheme of the Uttarakhand State. 5. By notice dated 15.10.2016 petitioners were asked to vacate the Government Accommodation/Shops and houses within a period of 15 days. In case some of them have not vacated, in view of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal order passed by Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Uttarakhand and also the order passed by the District Magistrate, Pauri, the same will get vacated. In case some of them have not vacated, in view of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal order passed by Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Uttarakhand and also the order passed by the District Magistrate, Pauri, the same will get vacated. The reasons were given in the notice that the petitioners were asked to submit their affidavits stating therein that they are land less, but in spite of time granted to them they have not filed the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have challenged the notices which are of same date. The impugned notices were passed without giving them opportunity to submit their affidavits and without following the rehabilitation scheme of Uttarakhand State. They submit that the petitioners have approached the authorities and want to submit their affidavits but they were not permitted to file the same and due to this reason affidavits could not be submitted in time. He also submitted that petitioners are still ready to file their affidavits. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that since the affidavits are not filed in time despite repeated reminders, therefore, in view of that on 15.10.2016, the notices were issued to the petitioners to vacate the Government Accommodation/Shops and houses. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. Petitioners are poor labourers. Their case is that though they have approached the authority concerned but their affidavits are not accepted, even if it is assumed that they could not approach in time, this Court thinks it proper to grant further time to the petitioners to file such affidavits. This Court keeping in mind that if they are “land less persons” they should be given some more time to file the affidavits. Consequently, I dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to file affidavits before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar within a period of ten days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In case such affidavits are filed, same shall be considered by the authority concerned in accordance with law. It is further directed that till the decision is taken by the District Magistrate in the matter, the petitioners shall not be evicted. If affidavits are not filed within ten days, the respondents are free to proceed further. 10. In case such affidavits are filed, same shall be considered by the authority concerned in accordance with law. It is further directed that till the decision is taken by the District Magistrate in the matter, the petitioners shall not be evicted. If affidavits are not filed within ten days, the respondents are free to proceed further. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be issued within 24 hours.