ASHISH TIWARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, primarily in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to allot three rooms in newly constructed Building No.Q2/A situated at Shri Kedarpuri, District Rudraprayag, in terms of the agreement/affidavit dtd. 2/2/2023, and further restraining the respondents from allotting the said rooms to any third party. The grievance of the petitioner essentially pertains to alleged non-compliance of the terms of the rehabilitation scheme and the agreement executed pursuant thereto.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Luheda (Fegu), Tehsil Basu Kedar, District Rudraprayag, and belongs to a family traditionally engaged as Tirth Purohits at Shri Kedarnath. It is stated that prior to the natural calamity of the year 2013, the petitioner's family owned and possessed a house/dharamshala at Shri Kedarpuri, which was damaged/demolished in the said calamity. Subsequent to the disaster, the State Government initiated rehabilitation and reconstruction scheme for affected persons in Shri Kedarpuri area, pursuant to Government Orders dtd. 6/4/2015, 19/2/2018 and 22/1/2020. Under the said scheme, provision was made for reconstruction of buildings and allotment of constructed units to affected persons, subject to execution of agreements/affidavits between the affected persons and the competent authority. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner executed an agreement/affidavit dtd. 2/2/2023 with the respondents, whereby the petitioner handed over possession of his existing structure to the authorities for the purposes of reconstruction under the master plan. As per the said agreement, the petitioner claims entitlement to allotment of three rooms in the newly constructed Building No.Q2/A . It is the case on record that Building No.Q2/A has since been constructed by the respondents and comprises multiple rooms. It is also on record that certain public notices/advertisements were issued by the authorities, including a notice dtd. 18/12/2024 inviting objections, followed by a final allotment notification dtd. 31/1/2025 indicating allotment of rooms to various beneficiaries, including the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that despite repeated approaches and submission of a representation dtd. 22/8/2025, possession of three rooms has not been effectively handed over to him. On the other hand, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that allotment has been made in accordance with applicable Government Orders and the petitioner has already been allotted rooms as per the final notification, while also referring to administrative constraints and policy considerations governing the allotment process.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the action of the respondents in not allotting and handing over possession of three rooms to the petitioner in Building No.Q2/A is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in clear breach of the agreement/affidavit dtd. 2/2/2023 executed between the parties. It is submitted that the petitioner had, in compliance of the rehabilitation scheme, voluntarily handed over possession of his constructed premises to the respondents with a legitimate expectation and assurance that in lieu thereof he would be allotted three rooms in the newly constructed building.