Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10169 (UTT)

MATBAR SINGH NEGI v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH RAILWAY MINISTRY

WPMS/2323/2018 · 2026-08-05

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010076902018 2026:UHC:6914 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2323/2018 Matbar Singh Negi --Petitioner Versus Union of India & Others --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. None for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the Union of India. (2) Petitioner’s immovable property was acquired for construction of Rishikesh- Karnprayag Railway Line, by invoking provisions under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re calculate the value of house and shop etc of the petitioner which is acquired for construction Rishikesh - Karnprayag Railline project. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the compensation / choice of Annuity etc to the petitioner / shop-owner as provided in The Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.” (3) Learned State Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to para 5 of the short counter affidavit, filed by Sri Girish Chandra Gunwant, Competent Authority, Land UKHC010076902018 2026:UHC:6914 Acquisition/Additional District Magistrate, Rudraprayag, where it is mentioned that the award was given under Schedule I of the aforesaid Act and the amount determined as compensation has been paid to petitioner’s father Sri Kalam Singh by online transaction. (4) Since the question raised by the petitioner cannot be decided in a writ petition, therefore, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the Competent Authority under Section 64 of the aforesaid Act, if compensation is not paid, as alleged by him. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 5.8.2026 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=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab 198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF 6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.08.05 18:34:58 +05'30' UKHC010076902018 2026:UHC:6914