TDHC India Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Alok Singh, J

1) By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 02.08.2014 and all consequential orders and actions taken

thereto, including order dated 23.09.2014.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent State Authorities not to trespass or encroach upon the land

and the property belonging to the petitioner Corporation by use of State Force and its might.â€​

2) Brief facts of the case are that in order to develop the Tehri Dam Project, acquisition proceedings for village Dobra, District Tehri Garhwal were

completed and total land measuring 0.318 hectare was acquired in the name of petitioner-Corporation. Thereafter, the land in question stood

transferred in favour of petitioner-Corporation and the name of petitioner was recorded in revenue records as well. On 08.06.2013, Hon’ble Chief

Minister of the State of Uttarakhand made an announcement for establishing a Primary Health Centre in Dobra. Pursuant to this, a communication

dated 11.11.2013 was made to the Principal Secretary, Medical & Health, Government of Uttarakhand to the effect that further action be taken for

execution of the announcement made by Hon’ble Chief Minister. For this purpose, in order to find out a suitable land for establishment of Primary

Health Centre, a joint inspection was carried out by the Nayab Tehsildar, Patwari and Revenue Sub Inspector and, as per the inspection report dated

30.05.2014, 15 Nali & 14 Muthi of the land, which belongs to petitioner-Corporation in village Dobra, was found suitable for the purpose of

establishment of Primary Health Centre. On the basis of said inspection report, a note was placed before the Directorate of Rehabilitation on

02.08.2014 to the effect that since no private land is available, hence, the land belonging to the petitioner may be demanded and appropriate

proceedings be initiated for getting it transferred from petitioner-Corporation to Health Department.

3) Vide impugned order dated 02.08.2014, the Directorate of Rehabilitation, Tehri Dam Project, New Tehri passed the following order:-

“Land sanctioned for PHC. Please demarcate and handover to Health Department.â€​

4) Consequently, on 23.09.2014, the State Authorities got transferred the possession of the land in question. On receiving such communication dated

23.09.2014, immediately, on 08.12.2014, a communication was made to the Chief Medical Officer, Tehri Garhwal requesting to provide copy of order

dated 02.08.2014 of the Directorate of Rehabilitation.

5) Feeling aggrieved by the transfer of land from petitioner to the Medical & Health Department, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner vigorously argued that appropriate proceedings were not adopted for getting the land transferred from petitioner

to the Health Department; the Directorate of Rehabilitation has no power to sanction a piece of land belonging to petitioner and to transfer the

land/property of the petitioner in favour of any person or agency; the land in question is recorded in the name of petitioner as per the revenue records;

the appropriate proceedings should have been taken for getting the land transferred from petitioner to Health Department.

7) In the counter affidavit filed by respondents, it has been stated that the land was acquired for the purpose of Tehri Dam Project and the Directorate

of Rehabilitation has powers to take decision over the land in question. Land in question (i.e. village Dobra) was not submerged in Tehri lake; at

present, there is no primary health centre in the area in question; in the interest of public at large, it was decided to open a primary health centre; and,

for this purpose, the land in question was transferred to the Health Department.

8) After considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that for the sake of arguments, it is

presumed that in the interest of public at large, the land of petitioner was transferred, but the Directorate of Rehabilitation must have taken appropriate

procedure for getting the land transferred from petitioner to the Health Department, inasmuch as petitioner is the sole owner and proprietor of the

land. The Directorate of Rehabilitation by a stretch of imagination cannot presume himself to be the owner of the land in question, instead the

Directorate of Rehabilitation has passed the impugned order as if it is the sole owner of the land in question. Moreover, the Directorate of

Rehabilitation has passed the impugned order without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Director, Rehabilitation is an

officer of the State to execute the rehabilitation policy of the petitioner -Corporation and has no power to transfer the property, which is recorded in

the name of petitioner- Corporation.

9) In view of above, the impugned order dated 02.08.2014 as well as all consequential orders and actions thereto, including order dated 23.09.2014 are

liable to be quashed aside. Therefore, the same are hereby quashed. The State Authorities are directed not to trespass or encroach upon the land of

the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.