Uttarakhand High Court
Hosiyar Singh & Ors vs State & Anr on 23 April, 2013
Author: B.S.Verma
Bench: B.S.Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.2093 of 2009 (M/S)
(Old No.12941 of 1991)
Hosiyar Singh & Ors.
... Petitioners
Vs.
State & Anr.
...Respondents
Hon'ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral)
None is present for petitioner no.1. Heard Mr. M.C. Pandey, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Lok Pal Singh and Mr. B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3/1 and 4/1, Mr. Sudhir Kumar and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6, Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by Deputy General Manager, T.H.D.C., whereby the Deputy General Manager has cancelled the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners in Ranipur Roah and simultaneously allotting land to them in Village Pathri Roah.
Briefly stated, facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that petitioner nos.2 to 6 were allotted 2 acres of land each in Village Ranipur Roah in lieu of their land situated in Village Pathri Raoh. According to the petitioners, after the allotment of the land, the petitioners 2 spent considerable amount in developing the land allotted to them. It is pleaded in para-11 of the writ petition that petitioner no.2 constructed his residential house in the plot allotted to him and spent a huge amount in the same. Other petitioners also made substantial investments in developing the land. After the land has been developed by the petitioners, Deputy General Manager, T.H.D.C. passed the impugned order cancelling the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners in village Ranipur Roah and simultaneously allotting land to them in village Pathir Roah. It is alleged that the impugned order has been passed without giving any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity to the petitioners.
The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavits. Stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that lease in respect of the land was given for a period of 5 years in the year 1989 which has been expired and therefore the petitioners have no right to continue.
In the impugned order itself, D.G.M. Rehabilitation admit this fact that earlier each of the petitioners were allotted land 2 acres land in Ranipur Raoh, but since Ranipur Roah is not a rural rehabilitation area, therefore, the allotment is cancelled and the land is given to the petitioners in Pathri Roah. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents itself falls to the ground that if the petitioners have no right to retain the land then why by the impugned order D.G.M. has cancelled and re-alloted the land to the petitioners in 3 Pathri Roah. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioners are entitled to get the land in lieu of land allotted to them in Ranipur Raoh.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that, in view of Government Order dated 20.11.1989, power to give land to the displaced person or the oustees, is with the Director Rehabilitation. This fact is not disputed that the petitioners are not the displaced persons because of Tehri Dam Project. They are the oustees since the allotments which were made by the Irrigation Department have been cancelled by the State Government vide G.O. No.1.4.1983.
In the counter affidavit filed by D.G.M. (Rehabilitation) at para-3(d) it is stated that initially Ranipur Roah was taken to be Rural Rehabilitation Centre. This area is close to Haridwar and Rishikesh. This area has developed quickly. Therefore, the Corporation has to accommodate large number of families. A majority of them are coming from the urban area namely the Tehri Town. It is not possible to allot 2 acres of land at Ranipur Roh. Residential plots can be allotted here in accordance with policy.
Counter affidavit was also filed by Director (Rehabilitation) supporting the contention of T.H.D.C. Later on, a supplementary counter affidavit was also filed by the T.H.D.C. before the Allahabad High Court stating that the documents were suppressed by the officer while filing the earlier counter affidavit.
4In para-4 of the counter affidavit, filed by Mr. B.D. Sharma, D.G.M. (Rehabilitation), it was averred that the petitioners were residing in rural areas. They were entitled to rehabilitation in the Rural Rehabilitation Centre and Ranipur Roh cannot be treated as Rural Rehabilitation Centre. As the petitioners are entitled for rehabilitation in Rural Rehabilitation Area, their allotment has been cancelled. They have been given 2 acres of land at Rural Rehabilitation Area.
So far as the entitlement to get 2 acres of land, being an oustee, the same is not disputed. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that since Ranipur Roh is not a rural rehabilitation area and the land has to be allotted to the oustee in a rural rehabilitation area therefore the land was allotted to them in Pathri Roh.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners alongwith which Notification dated 20.1.1981 has been filed wherein it is mentioned that the competent authority to pass such order is Director (Rehabilitation).
In view of G.O., only Director Rehabilitation is the competent authority who can give the land to the displaced persons of Tehri Dam Project.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has contended that the project of rehabilitation was handed over to T.H.D.C. However, in support of his contention, no documents have been filed with the counter affidavit.
5Therefore, the Court is of the considered view that the power lies with the Director Rehabilitation to pass orders in relation to rehabilitation claims.
In the case at hand, the only dispute is that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that Ranipur Roh is not a rural rehabilitation area and the petitioners are entitled to retain the land in rural rehabilitation area. This order has been passed without giving any show cause notice and opportunity of hearing. This fact has been admitted in para-3(d) of the affidavit of Sri B.D. Sharma. This fact is also not disputed in the counter affidavit that it was not a rural rehabilitation area. Even in the supplementary counter affidavit in para- 6(d) this fact has been admitted.
In the light of aforesaid, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained on two grounds:-
i) The order passed by Deputy General Manager (Rehabilitation) has been passed without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without any competence since by G.O. dated 20.11.1981 this power has been assigned to Director Rehabilitation.
ii) Even otherwise, when the allotment was made in favour of the petitioners at Ranipur Roh, at that time it was a rural rehabilitation area.
6For the reasons record above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by Deputy General Manager, T.H.D.C., is quashed. No order as to costs.
(B.S.Verma,J.) Rajni 23.04.2013