Disposed¶7

Yashwant Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Jul 2026WPMS/2036/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Yashwant Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, WPMS/2036/2026, Uttarakhand High Court, Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J., decided 08.07.2026. Land acquired for road construction under District Plan; pursuant to earlier Writ Petition No. 3092 of 2025 (MS) and its direction to the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Pauri, representation was decided and compensation of Rs. 1,28,800/- paid, alleged grossly inadequate; petitioner sought mandamus for full and fair compensation with statutory benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; State counsel submitted that a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot determine the compensation amount and a statutory forum exists; petitioner's counsel conceded the remedy; writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate forum under the aforesaid Act. Keywords: land acquisition compensation, inadequate compensation, Article 226 judicial review, RFCTLARR Act 2013, relegation to statutory forum, PWD Pauri.

What did the court decide?

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS/2036/2026
Yashwant Singh
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and others
--Respondents
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwal, Advocate
for the petitioner through video conferencing.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Deputy Advocate
General assisted by Mr. S.K. Nailwal,
Standing Counsel for the State.
2.
Petitioner’s land was acquired for

construction of road under District Plan. He
earlier filed Writ Petition No. 3092 of 2025
(MS), which was disposed of with a direction

to
the
Executive
Engineer,
Provincial

Division, PWD, Pauri, to take decision on

petitioner’s representation within 12 weeks.

3.
Petitioner has now filed this writ

petition with the contention that even though

in terms of order passed in earlier writ
petition, his representation was decided and
he was also paid compensation amounting to
Rs. 1,28,800/-; however, the amount paid as

compensation, is grossly inadequate and

petitioner is entitled to more amount as

compensation. 4. Reliefs sought in this writ petition are as follow: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the concerned respondents to release and pay full and fair compensation to the petitioner for his acquired land, along with all statutory benefits under the Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement act 2013, within a stipulated time frame. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction appropriate in nature directing the respondent concerned to compensate precisely the petitioner and further to take necessary action against the erring person who is instrumental on the same. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction appropriate in nature directing the respondent concerned to compensate looking to future loss to the petitioners and further to take necessary action against the erring person who is instrumental on the same.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that this
Court while exercising power of judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution
cannot determine the amount of
compensation and there is a forum available
to petitioner under Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act therefore petitioner should approach
, appropriate forum available to him in law.
6. Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwal, learned
counsel appearing for petitioner do not

compensation.
4.
Reliefs sought in this writ petition are
as follow:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and directing the
concerned respondents to release and pay full and
fair compensation to the petitioner for his acquired
land, along with all statutory benefits under the
Right to fair compensation and transparency in land
acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement act 2013,
within a stipulated time frame.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction appropriate
in nature directing the respondent concerned to
compensate precisely the petitioner and further to
take necessary action against the erring person who
is instrumental on the same.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction
appropriate in nature directing the respondent
concerned to compensate looking to future loss to
the petitioners and further to take necessary action
against the erring person who is instrumental on the
same.

5.
Learned State Counsel submits that this

Court while exercising power of judicial

review under Article 226 of the Constitution

cannot
determine
the
amount
of

compensation and there is a forum available

to
petitioner
under
Right
to
Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act therefore petitioner should approach

,
appropriate forum available to him in law.

6.
Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwal, learned

counsel appearing for petitioner do not

dispute the said	submi	ssion and he concedes
that petitioner	has	remedy under the
aforesaid Act.
7. Having re	gard to	the facts of the case,
writ petition is	dispos	ed of with liberty to
petitioner to ap	proach	the appropriate forum
under aforesaid	Act.
Mahinder/	(Man	oj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.07.2026

dispute the said

submi

ssion and he concedes

that petitioner

has

remedy under the

aforesaid Act.

7.
Having re

gard to

the facts of the case,

writ petition is

dispos

ed of with liberty to

petitioner to ap

proach

the appropriate forum

under aforesaid

Act.

Mahinder/

(Man

oj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
08.07.2026

Yashwant Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bsv Inter College Vs District Magistrate/Collector

Hanung Toys and Textiles Ltd. Vs Sushil Kumar

Hanung Toys and Textiles Ltd. Sikandarpur Bhainswal Vs Munnu Singh

Renu Bhandari Vs State of Uttarakhand

Narendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nirmala Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand