2025:UHC:7346 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2259/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 4. According to the petitioner, he is a project affected person, as his property was acquired for Tehri Dam Project. 5. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that, although he was paid monetary benefit, as per Land Acquisition Act, however, he was not given benefit of rehabilitation policy, inasmuch as, shop has not been allotted to him, which was allotted to other similarly situate persons. 6. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(A) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representations dated 21-02- 2025. (B) to direct the respondent no. 1 to conclude the proceedings of Case No. 87/2013 alongwith 88/2013 with regard to allocation of shop and land for house in favour of petitioners.” 7. Learned counsel appearing for THDC and learned State counsel submit that petitioner’s claim for allotment of shop was rejected by Grievance Redressal Cell, vide orders dated 06.06.2009 and 13.10.2009, therefore, 2025:UHC:7346 petitioner cannot now again stake claim for shop, by filing this writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refers to recommendation dated 04.11.2024, made by Executive Engineer, Infrastructure (Rehabilitation Division), New Tehri, which is also signed by Assistant Engineer-II, in which, it is observed that in lieu of the shops acquired for the project, petitioner can be allotted a commercial plot admeasuring 100 meters. Relying on the said document, he submits that the claim of the petitioner is still pending before the Competent Authority. 9. Without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if the Competent Authority is directed to decide petitioner’s representation. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Director, Rehabilitation to take decision on petitioner’s representation dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), as per law, within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Director, Rehabilitation shall also hear THDC before passing any order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.08.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f 487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A10381 9DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE 5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.08.21 10:34:02 +05'30'