SURENDRA SINGH RAWAT v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TEHRI GARHWAL
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Uttarakhand judgment dated 2025-01-10. SURENDRA SINGH RAWAT v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TEHRI GARHWAL. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
2025:UHC:459 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA TH 10 JANUARY, 2025 Writ Petition No. 69 of 2025 (M/S) Surendra Singh Rawat ... Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal/ Rehabilitation Director, Tehri Dam Project, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal and Another …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. D. S. Bohra, No. 1 Standing Counsel Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, No. 2 Advocate Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. Present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent to decide & conclude the proceedings of case, bearing R. R. No. 2881/2016 as per list (Annexure no. 1) page no. 12, serial no.
40 with regard to allotment of land in lieu of land acquired for Tehri 2025:UHC:459 Dam Project as expeditiously as possible, or within the time granted by this Hon'ble Court, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of case. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent authority to provide the benefit of rehabilitation scheme to the petitioner. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction of any nature in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of writ petition in favour of petitioner. ” 2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. S. Bohra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 3. Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate has contended that the land of the petitioner was acquired for Tehri Dam Project.
In place of his land, no land was provided to him. An application bearing no. RR No. 2881 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner before the Grievance Redressal Cell. The Grievance Redressal Cell is not functional. The matter is pending before the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal/Rehabilitation Director, Tehri Dam Project, the respondent no. 1. 2025:UHC:459 4. Mr. D. S. Bohra, Standing Counsel has sought six weeks’ time to decide the said case. 5. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal/ Rehabilitation Director, Tehri Dam Project, the respondent no. 1 to decide the said Case (RR No. 2881 of 2016) by a reasoned order and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of this case.
___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Date: 10. 01. 2025 JKJ/Pant
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.