2025:UHC:7882 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/185/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent-THDC. 4. Ms. Sangeeta Adhikari Patni, Advocate holding brief o Mr. N.S. Pundira, learned counsel for respondent no. 7. 5. Petitioner purchased a shop from a person, who was allotted that shop by THDC, under Rehabilitation Policy. According to petitioner, there is an open land adjacent to the shop which was purchased by him and he is continuing in possession over said land since last more than a decade, therefore, land deserves to be allotted to him. 6. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider the representations/application of petitioner for allotment of the vacant land adjacent to his Shop No. 38 by the name of Abi Fancy Gate Bus Stand Borari New Tehri, for which the petitioner is ready to pay prescribed rates for said allotment. (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the 2025:UHC:7882 respondents not to allot the vacant land adjacent to Shop No. 38 by the name of Abi Fancy Gate Bus Stand New Tehri in favour of respondent no. 7. 7. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for THDC, however, submits that since petitioner is not a project affected person, therefore, he is not entitled to benefit of Rehabilitation Policy. He further submits that petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied the vacant land, which is adjoining to shop purchased by him, and such unauthorised occupation cannot be regularised by allotting the land to him. He further submits that the vacant land has been allotted to one Mr. Rakesh Das, vide order dated 28.12.2023; however, the vacant possession could not be handed over to him because of unauthorised occupation of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made a representation for regularising his possession which may be directed to be decided. 9. This Court, however, is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. Since the land in question has been allotted to some other project affected person, by THDC, therefore, no direction can be issued in favour of petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 04.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.08 06:58:21 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7882