2025:UHC:2050-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J SPECIAL APPEAL No. 353 of 2015 THDC India Ltd. …Appellant Versus Ram Lal and Others …Respondents Counsel for appellant Counsel for State Counsel for respondent : : : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Naiwal, learned Standing Counsel. Nishant Krishan Adhikari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Advocate. JUDGMENT : (per HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) This intra-court Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 19.06.2015, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1386 of 2015. The said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference:- “ Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Joshi, Addl. C.S.C. the State. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 23.04.2015, passed by the Grievance Redressal Cell, Tehri Dam Project, New Tehri. Undisputedly, this Court in earlier round of litigation, vide judgment dated 09.05.2014, rendered in Writ Petition No. 1894 (M/S) of 2009, Ram Lal Vs. Grievance Redressal Cell and others, was pleased to remit the matter to the Grievance Redressal Cell with the direction to decide the representation of respondent No. 1 herein afresh in the light of the order dated 23.06.2003 as well as order dated 30.05.2009 whereby direction was issued to allot agricultural plot of 2 acres to each and every displaced persons after taking refund of compensation amount from them alongwith 30% p.a. interest in view of the fact that benefit of both the orders were 1 2025:UHC:2050-DB given to few other displaced persons and respondent No. 1 herein was wrongly discriminated. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that Grievance Redressal Cell having found that benefit of orders dated 23.06.2003 and 30.05.2009 was extended in favour of two other displaced persons and agricultural plot of two acres each was allotted to these two displaced persons after taking refund of 2015:UHC:4054 the compensation amount received by them alongwith 30% p.a. interest, was pleased to extend the same benefit in favour of respondent No. 1 herein. Undisputedly, orders dated 23.06.2003 and 30.05.2009 were never challenged or recalled and benefit thereof was extended in favour of two other persons, therefore, same benefit was rightly extended in favour of respondent No.1 and refusal to extend benefit later on to respondent No. 1 would amount to discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to take contrary view to the view taken by the Grievance Redressal Cell. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. CLMA No. 6639 of 2015 also stands disposed of accordingly.” 2. It is not in dispute that the land of respondent was acquired for construction of Hydro Project, and he was paid compensation, as payable under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Besides the compensation paid under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respondent was also paid cash compensation, in lieu of the acquired land, under Rehabilitation Policy. Subsequently, respondent staked claim for allotment of land, under new Rehabilitation Policy, by making an application to the Grievance Redressal Cell. His application was allowed by the Grievance Redressal Cell, vide order dated 23.04.2015, and the appellant/ THDC was directed to allot agricultural land to the respondent, within two 2 2025:UHC:2050-DB months of his returning the money, paid by appellant, as monetary compensation under Rehabilitation Policy. 3. Appellant challenged the order passed by Grievance Redressal Cell, on 23.04.2015, by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1386 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 19.06.2015. 4. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Writ Petition, only on the ground that two similarly situated persons were directed to be given agricultural land by Grievance Redressal Cell, and THDC/ appellant has allowed those two orders to attain finality, therefore, THDC/ appellant cannot question the order, passed in favour of respondent by the Grievance Redressal Cell. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records. 6. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for appellant submits that the judgment, rendered by learned Single Judge, is unsustainable for the sole reason that no one can claim negative equality by filing a Writ Petition; since respondent was paid cash compensation, as per the Rehabilitation Policy, which was also accepted by him, therefore, the Grievance Redressal Cell could not have directed the THDC/ 3 2025:UHC:2050-DB appellant to allot agricultural land to respondent, after his returning the money received by him as a cash compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further points out that the order dated 23.06.2003, referred in the impugned judgment, is a communication issued by the Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Government of Uttarakhand, to the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, THDC, and the other letter dated 30.05.2009, referred in the impugned judgment, is the Minutes of Meeting held on 30.05.2009 under the Chairmanship of Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal. Thus, he submits that the reasons assigned for upholding the order, passed by Grievance Redressal Cell on 23.04.2015, cannot be sustained. 8. The submissions made on behalf of appellant, however, have been disputed by Mr. Nishant Krishan Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent. 9. Be that as it may. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is revealed that Writ Petition, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed only on the ground that appellant did not challenge similar orders, passed in favour of two other persons. 4 2025:UHC:2050-DB 10. From the record, it is apparent that the cash component of compensation was deposited by THDC with Director, Rehabilitation in the year 2000, while the Government Policy, providing for grant of agricultural plot to un-disposed cases, was issued on 26.03.2003. As per said Government Order, the benefit of claiming agricultural land was available only to such land owners, who were not paid the cash component of compensation in full, and only partial payment was made to them. 11. Since, THDC has deposited the entire amount of cash component of compensation with the Director, Rehabilitation, and the same was paid over to respondent in the year 2000, therefore, respondent was not entitled to benefit of Government Order dated 23.06.2003. 12. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition only on the ground of negative equality. 13. The law is well settled that a benefit, wrongly granted to someone in violation of policy/ rules, cannot be made a precedent by someone else to claim similar benefit. 14. In such view of the matter, the Special Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge, and also the order passed by 5 2025:UHC:2050-DB Grievance Redressal Cell dated 23.04.2015, being unsustainable, are hereby quashed. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 21st March, 2025 Shiksha 6 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c 24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A5 42D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF 5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.03.25 15:41:11 +05'30'