2025:UHC:3459-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA 505 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional CSC, for the State. Mr. M.C. Upadhyaya, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3. (2) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.5.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 288 of 2017. By the said judgment, challenge to the order dated 21.4.2015, passed by Grievance Redressal Cell, made by appellant was repelled and the writ petition was dismissed. Relevant discussion has been made in para 3 of the impugned judgment, which is extracted below: “At this juncture, it is made clear that the Grievance Redressal Cell has been constituted under the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court to look into such matter. It was the Grievance Redressal Cell, which after considering the case of the private respondent has found that a compensation has been denied to the him and he is entitled for such compensation. This satisfaction on the part of the Grievance Redressal Cell is based on the report of the Assistant Engineer.” (3) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is unsustainable as private respondent had staked claim for compensation for left out property, after 2025:UHC:3459-DB more than ten years of culmination of earlier acquisition proceedings. Thus he submits that such delayed claim could not have been entertained by the Grievance Redressal Cell. (4) We are not impressed by the said submission. Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 24.4.2007, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 22894/2005 (N.D. Jayal & Anr. v. Union of India & Others), had constituted a Grievance Redressal Cell for redressal of grievances for compensation for acquired land and also the structures of the project affected persons. Question of reasonable compensation could also have been raised before the Grievance Redressal Cell. In the said order, Hon’ble Supreme Court has not fixed any time limit for staking such claim. Thus the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. (5) In the absence of any express provision regarding limitation made in the interim order dated 24.4.2007, the Grievance Redressal Cell could not have rejected the claim made for compensation only on the ground of limitation. We concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Thus there is no scope for interference. Accordingly, special appeal is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.05.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.06 17:58:20 +05'30'