Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital (Chief Justice Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay)
Order Date: 11 August 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellant Indramani (oustee of the Tehri Dam Project) versus the State of Uttarakhand, Director of Rehabilitation, Executive Engineer, Officer‑In‑Charge, Kushal Singh, Dheeraj Singh Rawat and THDC. Separate petitions also involved oustee Hikmat Singh Panwar.
- 2013 Allotments: Indramani was allotted agricultural Plot 4 (1,800 sq m) and residential Plot 4 (200 sq m) at Patel Nagar, Dehradun; Hikmat Singh Panwar received residential Plot 16 (200 sq m) and agricultural Plot 18 (½ acre). Both agricultural allotments were cancelled on 18 Nov 2013 for lack of prior State concurrence.
- 2021 WPMS/1492/2021: Indramani alleged that Chattar Singh had obtained a dual allotment of Plot E31 (½ acre) and sought its cancellation. The Court directed the Rehabilitation Director to consider Indramani’s representation dated 01 Feb 2021.
- Lottery of 06 Aug 2021: Despite the pending representation, Indramani was allotted agricultural Plot 300 (2 acres) and residential Plot 89 (200 sq m) at Pathri Bagh‑3 (West), Haridwar.
- 23 Feb 2022 Rehabilitation Director cancelled Chattar Singh’s dual Plot E31 but declined Indramani’s request for that plot, noting he already possessed Plot 300.
- Parallel proceedings by Hikmat Singh Panwar resulted in a Special Appeal (No. 66/2022) directing the authorities to reconsider his claim for an agricultural plot, which was later linked to Indramani’s writ petitions.
- Single Judge’s order (04 Apr 2025) observed:
- Indramani’s grievance that Plot 300 was unsuitable for agriculture (Deputy Revenue Officer report dated 15 Jul 2023).
- Indramani’s request to exchange Plot 330 for Plot E31 based on Office Memorandum dated 10 Jul 2003, which required Executive Engineer consent that was absent.
- The Court held no indefeasible right to a specific plot and directed the Rehabilitation Director to make Plot 330 (2 acres) suitable for cultivation within six weeks and then hand over possession.
- The Court also directed allocation of vacant Plot E31 to Hikmat Singh Panwar; possession was handed over on 15 Apr 2025.
- Review Application (Indramani): Alleged that Hikmat had concealed a sale deed of Plot 18 (dated 14 Feb 2013 to Naveen Uniyal). The Court found the cancellation of Plot 18 rendered the sale void, rejected the review, and noted THDC’s clarification that possession remained with it.
- Subsequent submissions by the appellant challenged:
1. Non‑disclosure of the sale deed.
2. Unsuitability of Plot 330 despite reports.
3. Validity of allocating Plot E31 to Hikmat without a lottery.
- The Court examined reports dated 08 Oct 2025 and 12 Sep 2025, and a field inspection on 17 Mar 2026, concluding that Plot 330 had been levelling‑worked, fertilised, and was now cultivable; THDC incurred Rs 20 lakh for the work.
- The Court reiterated alternative remedies for the appellant if dissatisfied: (i) inclusion in a future lottery (only 10 agricultural plots available for 16 eligible persons) or (ii) a cash grant of Rs 74.40 lakh under the Collateral Damage Policy.
- The Court affirmed that the direction to allocate Plot E31 to Hikmat was justified given the peculiar facts and noted compliance with the allocation order dated 15 Apr 2025.
Final Outcome
- The Special Appeal No. 356/2025 filed by Indramani is dismissed.
- Plot 330 (2 acres) is confirmed suitable for agriculture; the Rehabilitation Director must complete any remaining work within two weeks and hand over peaceful possession.
- Plot E31 is allotted to Hikmat Singh Panwar; possession already transferred on 15 Apr 2025.
- The review application concerning the undisclosed sale deed is rejected.
- The appellant may seek inclusion in a future agricultural‑plot lottery or claim a Rs 74.40 lakh cash grant under the Collateral Damage Policy.
- All pending applications in the matter are disposed of.
Topics: Land Rehabilitation, Dam Project Oustees, Judicial Relief