Petitioners challenged rejection of their father's application for shop allotment under the Tehri Dam rehabilitation scheme, having failed to prove he ran a shop in old Tehri till its submergence; the writ petition was dismissed as an earlier rejection order was not challenged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| W PMS 1 3 8 2 / 2 0 1 8 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. |
|||
| Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Suyash Pant, Brief Holder, for the State. |
|||
| (2) Petitioners’ father (Late Abdul Jabbar) applied for allotment of a shop under Rehabilitation Scheme introduced for the benefit of oustees of Tehri Dam Project. His claim was rejected by Director, Rehabilitation vide order dated 16.8.2016 on the ground that petitioners’ father could not produce any evidence that he was running a shop in old Tehri town till its submergence. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the rejection order dated 16.8.2016. |
|||
| (3) A short counter affidavit has been filed by Subodh Mathani, Executive Engineer, Infrastructure Unit, Rehabilitation, New Tehri. Para 6, 8 and 9 of the said counter affidavit are reproduced below: “6. That the land so acquired was accordingly compensated in terms of the entitlement of the petitioners/ petitioners ancestors and a plot no. 249 of the area 60 sq. Mtr. in Sector 7B of New Tehri was allotted to the father of the petitioners. In addition to that a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/ - was also given towards getting their house constructed on the said |
| plot. That despite appropriate and just |
|---|
| compensation to the petitioners/ petitioners ancestors they are still wrongly insisting on allotment of a commercial plot in the New Tehri Area. 8. That the Part II, Clause xii of Rehabilitation Policy, 1998, which pertains to Urban Compensation Package (Allotment of Shops/ Commercial Plot) in no uncertain terms stipulates that THDC has constructed shops at New Tehri City and other areas where people affected by Tehri Dam Project have been rehabilitated and that these shops are being allotted to those displaced persons, on no profit no loss basis, who were continuously running shops or commercial enterprises in old Tehri since 06.06.1985. A true copy of the Rehabilitation Policy, 1998 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SCA-1 to this affidavit. 9. That according to the report of the concerned department, the name of the petitioners/ petitioners ancestors is not present in the Commercial Survey Register for the year 1985. In addition, no documentary proof was either supplied or was found in the documents in the record of the answering respondents which would prove that the present petitioners/ petitioners ancestors were continuously doing any business in old Tehri since 06.06.1985, which has been acquired/ submerged in the water and as such which should have been compensated. It was on the bases of these findings that previously on 27.06.2015 also compensation for commercial plot/ shops has been declined to the petitioners/ petitioners ancestors. That the information of the said rejection was also communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 14.07.2015 of Executive Engineer, Infrastructure, Rehabilitation Division New Tehri. A copy of letter dated 14.07.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SCA-2 to this affidavit.” |
| (4) Learned State Counsel subm its that adequate compensation was paid to |
|---|
| petitioners’ father, for the land acquired for Tehri Dam Project, and he was also |
| given other benefits adm issible under the policy. He further subm its that since |
| father of the petitioners was not meeting the eligibility criteria for allotment of |
| shop, as he could not produce any evidence that he was running business in old Tehri, till it was submerged, therefore |
| application made by him was rejected earlier also, vide order dated 27.6.2015. |
| (5) Since one of the conditions of allotment of shop was that one should be running a shop or commercial enterprise in old Tehri town till 6.6.1985 and |
| petitioners could not substantiate their |
| version that they were running shop in |
| old Tehri till 6.6.1985, therefore, their |
| claim was liable to be rejected. |
| (6) Learned State Counsel, by |
| referring to Annexure 2 to the |
| supplementary counter affidavit, subm its |
| that application for allotment of shop |
| made by petitioners’ father was also |
| rejected vide order dated 27.6.2015. |
| Sim ilar statement is made in Para 9 of |
| the supplementary counter affidavit, which is unrebutted. Thus, this Court has |
| no other option but to treat the said |
averment as true. |
| (7) In the absence of challenge to |
| earlier rejection order passed by |
| Director, Rehabilitation, prayer as made |
| by petitioners cannot be granted. There |
| is no scope of interference in the matter |
| asnomaterial has beenproduced to |
| show that petitioners |
predecessor in interest of was doing business in old |
|---|---|
| Tehri Town petition is, |
, till its submergence. The writ accordingly, dismissed. |
| ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) | |
| 3 .6 .2 0 2 4 Pr |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners were entitled to allotment of a shop under the Tehri Dam Rehabilitation Scheme despite no proof of running a business in old Tehri till 06.06.1985.
Petitioners
State
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
