B.S. Verma, J.@mdashSri Ambika Ray, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Farida Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the Union of India-respondent No. 3.
2. Since all these writ petitions have been filed with a common prayer and as the controversy involved in all the writ petitions is identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common order.
3. All these eight writ petitions have been filed for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ or directions directing the respondents to demarcate and hand over the possession of the remaining 1 and 1/2 acres of agricultural land at Rudpur area at District Udham Singh Nagar, to the petitioner.
(b) Issue direction to the respondent No. 1 and 2 submit its entire report and show how many acres of land are still lying unused and vacant in the hands of rehabilitation department and how many acres of land have been given to the possession of the displaced person like the petitioner.
(c) Issue the direction to the respondents for stopping pick and choose policy.
(d) Pass the order against the respondents to compensate the damages for not handing over possession for last many years.
(e) Pass such any other appropriate order as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit or proper in the interest of social justice and equity.
4. The only grievance raised in the present writ petitions is that the respondent No. 1 handed over the possession of only one and a half acre of land, while total 3 acres of land per affected family was initially proposed to be given to the displaced families by the Government Order dated 20-10-1975. In reply to the averments made in the writ petition, short counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed by the State-respondent nos. 1 and 2.
5. It has been stated in paragraph No. 4 of the short counter affidavit that in lieu of the remaining 11/2 Acres of agricultural land, all the affected persons have received compensation much before the year 1984. It was also stated that certain land had been washed away in the flood, which was earmarked. All the affected persons have received Rs. 2500/through the Samiti constituted by such affected persons. The petition has been filed by concealing this fact and the writ petition is barred by the doctrine of estoppel and acquiescence.
6. In paragraph No. 5 of the short counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has sought parity of the judgment and order dated 13-2-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 965 (M/B) of 2006 Sri M.M. Biswas v. District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar and two Ors. The said writ petition was also misconceived and the same was filed by concealing the above fact regarding receiving of payment in lieu of the remaining 11/2 acres of agricultural land in the years 1984-85. In paragraph No. 6 it has been stated that the State Government by a Government Order dated 20-10-1975 took a policy decision to rehabilitate as many as 50 new displaced families of the then East Pakistan over 165 Acres of land situated in Rudrapur Block of Sampurnanand Jail, Sitarganj, Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar). As per the Scheme each family was to be allotted 3 Acres of land for agriculture and the remaining 15 Acres of land was to be earmarked for house construction and other public purposes and accordingly for the implementation of the rehabilitation scheme a sum of Rs. 6,06,500/- was sanctioned as loan and a sum of Rs. 83,850/- was sanctioned as aid in the financial year 1975-76. Copy of the G.O. dated 20-10-1975 has been annexed as Annexure No. SCA-1 to the short counter affidavit.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the valuation of the land in question was recommended by the District Rehabilitation Officer Rs. 15,000/- for 1.5-acre land, but this amount was not paid by the respondents.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The report of the District Rehabilitation Officer, Rudrapur (Nainital) dated 19-12-1983 has been annexed Annexure No. SCA-3 to the short counter affidavit. In this report, the District Rehabilitation Officer has stated that the sum of Rs. 15,000/- is not possible to be paid to the families concerned, but he had recommended to the Government to sanction a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per family as loan to run small business, hence prayer for grant of Rs. 1,25,00/- for 50 families was made to the State Government.
10. The State Government after receipt of the report from the District Rehabilitation Officer moved to the Secretary, Government of India by his letter dated 7-7-1984. It was stated therein that in the opinion of the State Government, a grant of Rs. 3,000/- per family be given for purchase of buffaloes. Ultimately, the Central Government has granted a sum of Rs. 2500/- per family to start small business. It was mentioned in the letter dated 17-8- 1984 sent by the Desk Officer of the Government of India to the Secretary of the State of U.P. Lucknow that this amount of Rs. 2500/- shall be given in lieu of 75 Acres of land, which had been washed away due to flood in the river. Copy of letter dated 17-8- 1984 has been annexed as Annexure No. SCA-06 to the counter affidavit.
11. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is unacceptable that the State Government should have paid Rs. 15000/- to each family in lieu of 1.5-acre land.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the compensation was not awarded as per recommendation and true value of land was not assessed.
13. In reply thereto, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the affected families had formed a registered Society in the name of Bhaktinagar Samuhik Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Malgaon, Rudpur and the said Samiti had made an application dated 3-12-1983 to the District Rehabilitation Officer and in that application a prayer was made to pay the price of 1.5 acre land at government rate in lieu of the land. A copy of the application has been annexed as S.C.A.-2 to the short counter affidavit. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners did not challenge the grant of amount before any authority, hence it is not open to the petitioners to dispute the amount, which had been sanctioned by the Government and the same is not subject-matter of the writ petitions.
14. So far as the question whether the compensation was fixed as per recommendation made by the State Government to the Central Government or not is concerned, this is not a question to be decided in these writ petitions, hence the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that in these writ petitions, the petitioners have claimed parity of the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 13-2-2007 passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 964 of 2006, Sh. Chand Mandal v. District Magistrate and two Ors. as well as Writ Petition No. 965 (M/B) of 2006, Sh. M.M. Biswas v. The District Magistrate and two Ors. These writ petitions were allowed and a writ of mandamus was issued directing the respondents to demarcate the land of the father of the petitioner measuring three acres and handover the possession thereof within a period of two months as mentioned in the order.
16. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent nos. 1 and 2 has stated at the Bar that the order dated 13-02-2007 was reviewed by the Division Bench of this Court in Review Application No. 324 of 2007 filed in Writ Petition No. 964 (M/B) of 2007 Sh. Chand Mandal v. The District Magistrate Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar and two Ors. and the Review Application No. 322 of 2007 filed in Writ Petition No. 965 (M/B) of 2007 and both the writ petitions stood dismissed. A copy of the order dated 26-7-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 965 of 2006 (M/B) has been annexed as SCA-8 to the short counter affidavit.
17. I have considered the averments made in the writ petitions, the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State along with its annexures and have perused the order passed in review petition. In the Writ Petition No. 964 (M/B) of 2006 Sh. Chand Mandal v. District Magistrate and two Ors. as well as Writ Petition No. 965 of 2006 (M/B) Sh. M.M. Biswas v. The District Magistrate and two Ors. similar controversy was involved and the petitioners have themselves claimed parity of the Division Bench Judgment in Writ Petition No. 964 of 2006 (M/B) and Writ Petition No. 965 of 2006 (M/B).
18. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26-7- 2007 allowed the review petitions filed in the aforesaid two writ petitions and the order was passed to the following effect in each case:
With the result, the review petition is allowed. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner stands dismissed.
19. In view of the order dated 26-7-2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court thereby dismissing the writ petition No. 965 of 2006 (M/B), referred to above, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on merits in terms of the said order.
20. All the writ petitions are dismissed in terms of the order dated 26-7-2007, passed in Review Application No. 322 of 2007 moved in Writ Petition No. 965 (M/B) of 2006 Sh. M.M. Biswas v. The District Magistrate and two Ors. No order as to costs.
21. All pending applications stand disposed of.
