Directorate Of Rehabilitation Tehari Dam Project vs Shakha Kathait

RESPONDENT S in these three revision petitions were the complainants before the District Forum, where they had filed three separate complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, Rehabilitation Directorare, Tehri Dam, Tehri, Uttaranchal.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant in each of the complaints were residing in Tehri Town, albeit, as Government servants. In the wake of construction of Tehri Dam, a Rehabilitation -Policy'' was formulated in 1986 wherein Policy was outlined to rehabilitate the people residing in the area coming under submergence or being affected by the construction of dam. Under this scheme, the people living in the township of Tehri were being given plots at concessional rates in the areas indicated in the scheme. It was the case of the complainants that they had applied for allotment of house sites at the alternative sites on the ground that they were Government servants, who were not eligible under the rehabilitation policy. It is in these circumstances, three separate complaints were filed before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Revision Petition No. 2252 of 2005

IN this case, the complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Shakha Kathait, was allowed and the petitioner was directed to allot a plot of 150 sq. mtrs. to the respondent along with cost of Rs. 500. Aggrieved/dissatisfied by this order, both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, which were dismissed. Revision Petition Nos. 2253 & 2254 of 2005 The District Forum after hearing the parties, by a majority judgement, directed the petitioner to refund Rs. 750 to the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of registration along with compensation of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by this order, both the respondents filed separate appeals before the State Commission, which were allowed and the petitioner was directed to allot 150 sq. mtrs. plots to the respondents/complainants within a month and a cost of Rs. 1,000, in each of the case, was also awarded.

AGGRIEVED by the order(s) of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed these three revision petitions.

SINCE the point of law involved is the same, in all these three revision petitions, we go on to dispose them of by a single common order.

WE heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at considerable length and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that as per material on record, the first rehabilitation policy with regard to Tehri -Dam -Project'' was issued on 15.3.1986. It is also not in dispute that the respondents/complainants made an application for allotment within the stipulated period. But no plot was allotted to them. It is also on record that the petitioner came up with another rehabilitation policy in October 1995, now, under the caption Tata -Hydro Development Corporation Limited'' (a joint venture of Government of India and the then Government of U.P. - now Government of Uttaranchal). It is also not in dispute that the subsequent to this another rehabilitation policy was issued in December 1998. It is also not in dispute that the cases of the respondents / complainants were not considered by the petitioner for allotment of residential plots and on the alternative site, on the ground that they were tenants'' as also Government servants.'' According to petitioner, this category of people were not covered under the Rehabilitation policy''.

WE have very carefully gone through all these three rehabilitation policies and find that, in the original scheme of 1986, there is no mention about disqualifying/or ousting a Government servant, from applying for the plot. This ineligibility clause for the first time finds a reference in the policy of 1995.

IT is quite clear from the perusal of the rehabilitation scheme of 1995 and December 1998, that at no time, it deals with the fate of the applicants or people, who had applied for plots keeping in view the clauses of the Rehabilitation -policy'' of 1986. In fact, the subsequent policy of 1995 and 1998 is silent on this particular point, i.e., the effect of changes in the ''Rehabilitation policy'' announced in 1995 and 1998 on the status of people who were eligible/not disqualified under the Rehabilitation Scheme of 1986 for allotment of a residential plot? In fact, what we find is that scheme of 1995 under the heading evolution of rehabilitation policy at pages 1 and 2, reads as under: "Rehabilitation work had been commenced by the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh from the year 1976. The Rehabilitation Policy, including the location of the New Tehri Town, had been evolved and decided by the State Government at the highest level after interaction with the representatives of the local population. After the formation of the THDC and the transfer of rehabilitation work to THDC, Rehabilitation Policy as evolved by the State Government was fully adopted by the Corporation, and later on the amounts of compensation were improved where necessary. A further comprehensive package of improvements has been decided by the THDC after interaction with the affected population and the local Administration, both for rural and urban rehabilitation. These additional measures indicated hereafter would be effective from 1.9.1995."

(Emphasis supplied)

A plain reading would make it clear, that what was added/sought to be added by the rehabilitation package of 1995 has, in addition, to what was stated in the rehabilitation package policy of 1986. We specifically put it to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to show us anything in the new policy which ousted the eligibility of the applicants otherwise eligible in 1986 scheme, which according to him would be ousted or become ineligible under the scheme of 1995? Nothing could be shown to us in this regard, in view of which we hold that the respondents/complainants had applied for plots despite being Government servants or employees of PSU and cannot be held ineligible for allotment of plots for the simple reason that the policy enunciated in 1986 did not envisage any such ground for ineligibility and since the Policy of 1995 and 1998 did not negate or repeal the policy of 1986 any change made subsequently in our view, would not adversely affect the rights according to the people living in the affected area, in view of the provisions of the rehabilitation policy of 1986.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in these revision petitions. Dismissed. No order as to costs. R.Ps. dismissed.