2050-DB I N TH E H I GH COURT OF UTTA RA K H v. Counsel for

Mr. Sudhir Kum ar Naiwal, learned St anding Counsel. Nishant Krishan Adhikari, Advocat e holding of Mr. Ram j i Shrivast ava, Adv ocat e. JUD GM EN T : ( p e r H ON ’ BLE M R. M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J.) This int ra- court Appeal is direct ed against j udgm ent and order dat ed 19.06.2015, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 1386 of

2015. The said j udgm ent is reproduced below for ready reference: - “ Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Joshi, Addl. C.S.C. the State. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 23.04.2015, passed by the Grievance Redressal Cell, Tehri Dam Project, New Tehri. Undisputedly, this Court in earlier round of litigation, vide judgment dated 09.05.2014, rendered in Writ Petition No. 1894 (M/S) of 2009, Ram Lal Vs. Grievance Redressal Cell and others, was pleased to remit the matter to the Grievance Redressal Cell with the direction to decide the representation of respondent No. 1 herein afresh in the light of the order dated 23.06.2003 as well as order dated 30.05.2009 whereby direction was issued to allot agricultural plot of 2 acres to each and every displaced persons after taking refund of compensation amount from them alongwith 30% p.a. interest in view of the fact that benefit of both the orders were 1 given to few other displaced persons and respondent No. 1 herein was wrongly discriminated. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that Grievance Redressal Cell having found that benefit of orders dated 23.06.2003 and 30.05.2009 was extended in favour of two other displaced persons and agricultural plot of two acres each was allotted to these two displaced persons after taking refund of 2015:UHC:4054 the compensation amount received by them alongwith 30% p.a. interest, was pleased to extend the same benefit in favour of respondent No. 1 herein. Undisputedly, orders dated 23.06.2003 and 30.05.2009 were never challenged or recalled and benefit thereof was extended in favour of two other persons, therefore, same benefit was rightly extended in favour of respondent No.1 and refusal to extend benefit later on to respondent No. 1 would amount to discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to take contrary view to the view taken by the Grievance Redressal Cell. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. CLMA No. 6639 of 2015 also stands disposed of accordingly.”

2. I t is not in disput e t hat t he land of respondent was acquired for const ruct ion of Hydro Proj ect , and he was paid com pensat ion, as payable under Land Acquisit ion Act , 1894. Besides t he com pensat ion paid under Land Acquisit ion Act , 1894, respondent was also paid cash com pensat ion, in lieu of t he acquired land, under Rehabilit at ion Policy. Subsequent ly, respondent st aked claim for allot m ent of land, under new Rehabilit at ion Policy, by m aking an applicat ion t o t he Grievance Redressal Cell. His applicat ion was allowed by t he Grievance Redressal Cell, vide order dat ed

23.04.2015, and t he appellant / THDC was direct ed t o allot agricult ural land t o t he respondent , wit hin t wo 2 m ont hs of his ret urning t he m oney, paid by appellant , as m onet ary com pensat ion under Rehabilit at ion Policy.

3. Appellant challenged t he order passed by Grievance Redressal Cell, on 23.04.2015, by filing Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 1386 of 2015. The said Writ Pet it ion was dism issed by learned Single Judge of t his Court vide j udgm ent dat ed 19.06.2015.

4. Learned Single Judge has dism issed t he said Writ Pet it ion, only on t he ground t hat t wo sim ilarly sit uat ed persons were direct ed t o be given agricult ural land by Grievance Redressal Cell, and THDC/ appellant has allowed t hose t wo orders t o at t ain finalit y, t herefore, THDC/ appellant cannot quest ion t he order, passed in favour of respondent by t he Grievance Redressal Cell.

5. Heard learned counsel for t he part ies, and perused t he records.

6. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appellant subm it s t hat t he j udgm ent , rendered by learned Single Judge, is unsust ainable t he sole reason t hat no one can claim negat ive equalit y by filing a Writ Pet it ion; since respondent was paid cash com pensat ion, as per t he Rehabilit at ion Policy, which was also accept ed by him , t herefore, t he Grievance Redressal Cell could not have direct ed t he THDC/ 3 appellant t o allot agricult ural land t o respondent , aft er his ret urning t he m oney received by him as a cash com pensat ion.

7. Learned counsel t he appellant furt her point s out t hat t he order dat ed 23.06.2003, referred in t he im pugned j udgm ent , is a com m unicat ion issued by t he Principal Secret ary, I rrigat ion and Power, Governm ent of Ut t arakhand, t o t he Chairm an- cum - Managing Direct or, THDC, and t he ot her let t er dat ed

30.05.2009, referred in t he im pugned j udgm ent , is t he Minut es of Meet ing held on 30.05.2009 under t he Chairm anship of Com m issioner, Garhwal Mandal. Thus, he subm it s t hat t he reasons assigned for upholding t he order, passed by Grievance Redressal Cell on

23.04.2015, cannot be sust ained.

8. The subm issions m ade on behalf of appellant , however, have been disput ed by Mr. Nishant Krishan Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent .

9. Be t hat as it m ay. From perusal of t he im pugned j udgm ent , it is revealed t hat Writ Pet it ion, filed by t he appellant , has been dism issed only on t he ground t hat appellant did not challenge sim ilar orders, passed in favour of t wo ot her persons. 4

10. From t he record, it is apparent t hat t he cash com ponent of com pensat ion was deposit ed by THDC wit h Direct or, Rehabilit at ion in t he year 2000, while t he Governm ent Policy, providing for grant of agricult ural plot t o un- disposed cases, was issued on 26.03.2003. As per said Governm ent Order, t he benefit of claim ing agricult ural land was available only t o such land owners, who were not paid t he cash com ponent of com pensat ion in full, and only part ial paym ent was m ade t o t hem .

11. Since, THDC has deposit ed t he ent ire am ount of cash com ponent of com pensat ion wit h t he Direct or, Rehabilit at ion, and t he sam e was paid over t o respondent in t he year 2000, t herefore, respondent was not ent it led t o benefit of Governm ent Order dat ed

23.06.2003.

12. Learned Single Judge has dism issed t he Writ Pet it ion only on t he ground of negat ive equalit y.

13. The law is well set t led t hat a benefit , wrongly grant ed t o som eone in violat ion of policy/ rules, cannot be m ade a precedent by som eone else t o claim sim ilar benefit .

14. I n such view of t he m at t er, t he Special Appeal is allowed. Consequent ly, t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Single Judge, and also t he order passed by 5 Grievance Redressal Cell dat ed 23.04.2015, being unsust ainable, are hereby quashed. M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 21 st March, 2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c 24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A5 42D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF 5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 6