TARA CHAND SAINI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1890 of 2007 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dtd. 30/5/2019 dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) The appellant-writ petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1890 of 2007 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dtd. 2/2/2007; and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to record the name of the petitioner, pursuant to the decision taken by the respondents to revert the land to tenure-holders, in the light of the Government Orders issued by the State Government.

(3.) The appellant-writ petitioner's case, as is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the subject land was under acquisition by virtue of a notification issued under Sec. 4 and a declaration issued under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act); the Sec. 6 declaration, issued on 9/2/1962, records that the purpose of acquisition is for construction of dwelling houses of workmen, and the other work of setting up a factory for manufacturing heavy electrical equipment; the subject land was not utilized by BHEL; as a result, this vacant land, which in fact belongs to the appellant-writ petitioner, continued to remain in their possession; in 1970, the State Government took a decision that, out of the total acquired land, 135 acres would be reverted to the original tenure-holders; a Government Order was issued on 21/2/1971 for the said purpose; the appellant-writ petitioner submitted a representation on 20/7/2005; pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities issued notices to the appellant-writ petitioner asking him to approach them and deposit the compensation amount, given to his ancestors, in the Treasury; questioning the inaction of the respondents, the appellant-writ petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1225 of 2006; this Court, by its order dtd. 27/9/2006, directed the third respondent to dispose of the application expeditiously; the third respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the appellant-writ petitioner's claim relying on two judgments of the Supreme Court; a part of the subject land has been reverted to SIDCUL on 10/8/2004; the State Government has, time and again, been issuing Government Orders regulating the activity of reversion of land, which was acquired and not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired; and, as per the said Government Order, reversion of the land had to be effected, in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner, by the State Government. Several instances of third-party interests being created by BHEL, in favour of others, has been referred to in the writ petition.