Dismissed¶10

Mohd Sahzad v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Sept 2025WPMS/185/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court; WPMS/185/2024; 2025:UHC:7882; Manoj Kumar Tiwari J.; THDC Rehabilitation Policy; project affected person; allotment of vacant land adjacent to Shop No. 38, Abi Fancy Gate Bus Stand, Borari/New Tehri; unauthorised occupation; regularisation of possession refused; allotment to Rakesh Das vide order dated 28.12.2023; mandamus for consideration of representation refused; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court was not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. ¶9

Mohd Sahzad Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:UHC:7882

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPMS/185/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
			2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
			3. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent-THDC.
			4. Ms. Sangeeta Adhikari Patni, Advocate holding brief o Mr. N.S. Pundira, learned counsel for respondent no. 7.
			5. Petitioner purchased a shop from a person, who was allotted that shop by THDC, under Rehabilitation Policy. According to petitioner, there is an open land adjacent to the shop which was purchased by him and he is continuing in possession over said land since last more than a decade, therefore, land deserves to be allotted to him.
			6. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
			(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider the representations/application of petitioner for allotment of the vacant land adjacent to his Shop No. 38 by the name of Abi Fancy Gate Bus Stand Borari New Tehri, for which the petitioner is ready to pay prescribed rates for said allotment. (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the

¶3

2025:UHC:7882

¶4

respondents not to allot the vacant land adjacent to Shop No. 38 by the name of Abi Fancy Gate Bus Stand New Tehri in favour of respondent no. 7. 7. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for THDC, however, submits that since petitioner is not a project affected person, therefore, he is not entitled to benefit of Rehabilitation Policy. He further submits that petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied the vacant land, which is adjoining to shop purchased by him, and such unauthorised occupation cannot be regularised by allotting the land to him. He further submits that the vacant land has been allotted to one Mr. Rakesh Das, vide order dated 28.12.2023; however, the vacant possession could not be handed over to him because of unauthorised occupation of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made a representation for regularising his possession which may be directed to be decided. 9. This Court, however, is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. Since the land in question has been allotted to some other project affected person, by THDC, therefore, no direction can be issued in favour of petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 04.09.2025

¶5

Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.08 06:58:21 -07'00'

¶6

2025:UHC:7882

Mohd Sahzad v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Sahzad v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Committee of Management Janta Inter College Vs State of Uttarakhand

Committee of Management Sri Guru Ram Rai Inter College Nehrugram Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Vs Commissioner Excise State of Uttarakhand

Vijay Khanduja Vs Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Harshita Joshi Vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission