Rajendra Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent no. 1 & 2 to execute the assurances given by it in its affidavit dated 22.10.2013 filed in WP (PIL) 87 of 2012. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent no. 1, 2 & 4 to complete the proceedings of acquisition within the time as permitted by law, so that the redevelopment plan can be enforced as assured to this Hon''ble Court. 3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent n. 3 to complete its entire redevelopment proceedings as assured to this Hon''ble Court. 4. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents to conclude the entire proceeding of redevelopment with in any stipulate time which the Hon''ble Court think proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

The petitioner in this writ petition was the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 87 of 2012. Apparently, the purport of the writ petition is to give effect to the assurances given to the Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 87 of 2012 to execute the redevelopment plan of Chakrata road. It is the case of the petitioner that after slicing the buildings in Chakrata road, overhanging demolished structures can fall at any time. Some of the demolished structures are very old and sliced structures as existing are consistently posing threat to the commuters on the road. Annexure -2 is the report of the Disaster Management of the State Government, which shows that the structures have become very weak and dangerous, and complete demolition and organized development would be the long term solution. Reference is made to the order of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 87 of 2012. There is reference to State Government informing the Court that it has granted approval to the redevelopment plan as well as informing that the plan was being implemented, for which acquisition proceeding has been initiated. Annexure -6 is affidavit dated 22.10.2013 filed by the State. It is this assurance contained in this affidavit, which is sought to be enforced. Relevant contents of the affidavit, as extracted in Paragraph -14 of the writ petition, are as follows:

"8. Subsequent thereto, the State filed an affidavit on 22nd October 2013, where it stated as follows: "2. That in order to place on record the factual position and the steps taken by the Respondent No. 1 / State Government in regard to the submissions made, as recorded in the order dated 08.10.2013 passed by this Hon''ble Court, the Respondent No. 1 / State Government is filing the affidavit, in compliance. 3. That, taking into consideration the reports of various agencies and for redevelopment of the area in public interest, the Respondent No. 1 / State Government has already granted formal approval of the Redevelopment plan submitted by MDDA, as recorded in the order dated 15.7.2013. 4. The RFP (Request for Proposal) and DCA (Draft Concession Agreement) submitted by the MDDA to the State Government on 04.10.2013 have been referred to various committees like Public Private Partnership Cell, Expenditures Finance Committee, Infrastructure Development Committee and by the State Cabinet involved under the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008 and Public Private Partnership Policy, 2012, for their consent. The decision for approval of RFP & DCA by the State Government will be taken within 8 weeks. 5. That the Revised Formal Policy on Redevelopment of Chakrata Road, has been submitted by MDDA on 21/10/2013 which is under examination and the same will be approved within 2 weeks by the State Govt. 6. That for acquisition of land, the State Government has already published the Notification dated 11.10.2013 under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 17.10.2013. Copy of the Notification dated 11.10.2013 published on 17.10.2013 in Daily News Papers, is being placed as Annexure SA-1 to this affidavit. The Notification for declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, on completion of the procedure involved, will also be issued shortly. The State Government would make efforts to complete the process of acquisition within next 8 weeks. Once the above process is complete, the State Government shall handover the possession acquired land and Nazul land to MDDA for implementation of the Redevelopment plan as per approved Formal policy. 7. In view of the above position, the Hon''ble Court may kindly fix the petition for further hearing after 8 weeks, during which period the State Government will try its best to complete the process, as mentioned above, keeping in view the urgent steps required to be taken in the interest of public at large and, in particular, for safety and convenience of public life and property.".

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos. 1 & 2. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated that MDDA has already initiated proceeding for redevelopment. Notifications under Sections 6 and 17 were issued. There is reference to litigations. Originally, learned Single Judge directed that objections be filed under Section 5A and the same were to be considered. This is by order dated 10.04.2014. The writ petitioners filed their review petitions, which were allowed by Annexure CA-2. The same was, however, challenged and the original judgment of the learned Single Judge directing consideration of objections under Section 5A was restored and setting aside of Section 4 Notification was reversed, and the affected parties filed objection under Section 5A . There was a proceeding before the Hon''ble Apex Court. Hon''ble Apex Court dismissed the same and

upheld the order of the Division Bench by judgment dated 28.11.2014.

There is, in fact, no dispute that thereafter matters are pending in this Court relating to acquisition. Therefore, we would think that the petitioner may not be justified in seeking the relief sought and the respondent cannot be blamed in the present state of affairs. As things stand, there is no cause of action for the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. This is, however, without prejudice to the petitioner to approach this court if need arises.