AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner’s land situate in Village Bhason, District Tehri Garhwal was acquired for Tehri Dam Project. He was paid compensation and also allotted land, both agricultural and residential in District Haridwar under Rehabilitation Policy. His dwelling house, however, was not acquired, as it was situate above the Reservoir Level (R.L.-835 meter).
Petitioner made representation on 14.09.2021 claiming compensation for the dwelling house, which was considered and rejected by Director, Rehabilitation, vide order dated 10.08.2022. Petitioner has challenged said order in this writ petition. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows:-
“i)Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for records and to quash the office order dated 10-08-2022 (Annexure No. 8) passed by respondent no. 2.
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give compensation to the petitioner for building/house as the entire land of the petitioner has been acquired and rehabilitated at Pathari, Haridwar.”
Perusal of impugned order reveals that petitioner placed reliance upon a decision taken by Grievance Redressal Cell, Tehri Dam Project in favour of one Mr. Pyar Singh. Director, Rehabilitation, dealt with said contention and held that Mr. Pyar Singh’s house was constructed over his private land, whereas the house for which petitioner is claiming compensation, is standing over Government land. Director, Rehabilitation further held that petitioner’s house was neither affected by Tehri Dam Project nor was submerged in water, as it was above Reservoir Level, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for compensation. It was further held that petitioner was allotted agricultural land as well as residential plot in Pathri, District Haridwar under Rehabilitation Policy, therefore, the claim staked by him for compensation regarding dwelling house is unfounded. In fourth page of the impugned order, satisfaction expressed by petitioner regarding benefits given under Rehabilitation Policy is recorded.
This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by Director, Rehabilitation. Petitioner claimed compensation by contending that the dwelling house in question is of no use to him now, as his entire family has shifted to Pathri (Haridwar) where land was allotted to him under Rehabilitation Policy. There is nothing on record to show that the house in question was damaged or had become unusable due to Tehri Dam Project. Admittedly, the house is much above the Reservoir Level and it has not suffered any damage due to Tehri Dam Project. Thus, petitioner’s claim for compensation on the ground that he is not able to use the house due to migration to Haridwar, was rightly rejected.
Thus, there is no scope for interference with the order passed by Director, Rehabilitation. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.