Azeem Ahmad others v. Director, Rehabilitation/ District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal and another --Respon

judgment and order dated 26.05.2014. In the writ petition, he has sought the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature certiorari quashing impugned order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the respondents by which the claim of the petitioner regarding the commercial land as well as the housing facility has been rejected and placed the petitioner in 3rd Category instead of 1st 1 Category of the displaced person (Annexure No 6 to the writ petition) b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the commercial land and housing facility to the petitioner under rehabilitation policy framed by the respondents c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant Rs. 3,00,000/- as reimbursement to the petitioner instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-.”

2. According to the writ-petitioner, he is a project affected person, as his workshop, established over a piece of land admeasuring 1000 square meter in Old Tehri, was acquired for Tehri Dam Project, therefore, he is entitled for allotment of a commercial plot and also a housing accommodation. He approached Grievance Redressal Cell for allotment of commercial plot and residential accommodation. His prayer was turned down by Director, Rehabilitation, vide order dated 17.11.2008. Rejection of request commercial plot and residential accommodation by Director, Rehabilitation was challenged by him in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 918 of 2009, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment, which is reproduced below:- “As per the rehabilitation policy, for the purpose of grant of compensation only those motor vehicle workshop owners can be treated under Class-I who were running heavy motor vehicle workshop. There is absolutely nothing on record that petitioner was having heavy motor vehicle workshop. Document produced on record shows that petitioner was running motor vehicle workshop which was duly approved for the repairs of the government vehicle. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the T.H.D.C. that petitioner might be running light vehicle motor workshop and for this purpose, 2 compensation of Rs.1 lac was paid to the petitioner in lieu of the loss of the business. Therefore, petitioner was rightly categorized under Class-III and was allotted commercial plot of 250 sq.m. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that petitioner could not produce any document before the Redressal Forum to the effect that other persons who were allotted bigger commercial plots in fact, were having commercial plots of 1000 sq.mt. or lesser area. Therefore, I do not find any reason to take contrary view to the view taken by the Grievances Redressal Forum. Thus petition fails and is hereby dismissed.”

3. Perusal of the record reveals that wife of writ- petitioner (Smt. Rasda Bano) was allotted House No. 5-A/B- 92 at New Tehri under the Rehabilitation Policy, besides cash benefit of `2,28,042/- for acquisition of the rented accommodation in Old Tehri in which writ-petitioner and his wife were residing. It is also revealed that writ-petitioner was also allotted a commercial plot, admeasuring 250 square meter in lieu of acquisition of his motor garage, which fact was not disclosed in the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that his client is entitled to cash benefit amounting to `3,00,000/-, which is available to persons enlisted in Ist category, as he was running a workshop for repair of light and heavy motor vehicles at Old Tehri. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon a letter dated 29.12.1981 issued by Government Inspector (Technical) in the office of Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Rishikesh. However, when a pointed query was put to him as to whether the said document was 3 placed before Grievance Redressal Cell or before learned Single Judge, he conceded that the said document could not be produced before Grievance Redressal Cell nor before learned Single Judge, and it was brought on record with the review application filed before learned Single Judge.

5. The judgment rendered by learned Single Judge cannot be faulted for not considering a document, which was not placed on record before writ court.

6. Learned counsel for appellant then submitted that it is a case of discrimination, inasmuch as, one Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, a similarly situate person, who was running a motor garage, was allotted 1969 square meter land for setting up motor garage. However, in the writ petition, there is no such averment that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain was allotted 1969 square meter land at some other place for setting up a motor garage.

7. Learned counsel for appellant contended on the basis of a document enclosed as Annexure-2 to the rejoinder affidavit, that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain was allotted 1969 square meter land, however, at item no. 15 of the said document, which was referred to by learned counsel, M/s Garhwal Motor Owners Union Ltd. is mentioned and name of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain is altogether missing.

8. Learned counsel for the THDC submits that Garhwal Motor Owners Union Ltd. is a company, which runs bus services in Garhwal Region, therefore, it cannot be 4 argued that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain is the proprietor of the said company. He submits that individual bus owners attach their buses with Garhwal Motor Owners Union Ltd., which ply the buses on different routes based on the permit given by Regional Transport Authority / State Transport Authority. Thus he submits that the allegation that Mr. Jain was given some benefit, which was not given to writ-petitioner, is incorrect.

9. We do not find any scope for interference in the impugned judgment. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for not interfering with the order passed by Director, Rehabilitation. Appellant claims that he was entitled to benefits, which are available to persons included in Category-I, however, as per norms, he was not to be included in Category-I, and he was rightly placed in Category-III and was given all benefits, which are available to a person included in Category-III.

10. Accordingly Special Appeal fails and is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 02.06.2025 Navin 5