HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1246 of 2025 (M/S) Govind Ballabhy Upadhyay ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another ……..... Respondents Present : Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) It is the case of the petitioner that his land was used by the respondent department for construction of road, but the payment for Udyaan was not made despite several representations made by the petitioner. He refer to Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, a communication to the Executive Engineer made to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he may be given liberty to make a representation to the respondent no.2, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Didihat, Pithoragarh with the directions to the respondent no.2, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Didihat, Pithoragarh to take a decision on it within a stipulated time. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that if such a representation is made by the petitioner to the respondent no.2, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Didihat, Pithoragarh, it shall be decided within a period of four weeks. 2 5. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned State Counsel. 6. The petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent no.2, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Didihat, Pithoragarh within a period of one week with further direction to the respondent no.2, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Didihat, Pithoragarh to take a decision on it within a period of next four weeks. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.05.2025 Sanjay