2026:UHC:2765 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2835 of 2025 09th April, 2026 Ashish Tiwari ………….Petitioner Versus Government of Uttarakhand and others ………….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned D.A.G. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, primarily in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to allot three rooms in newly constructed Building No.Q2/A situated at Shri Kedarpuri, District Rudraprayag, in terms of the agreement/affidavit dated 02.02.2023, and further restraining the respondents from allotting the said rooms to any third party. The grievance of the petitioner essentially pertains to alleged non-compliance of the terms of the rehabilitation scheme and the agreement executed pursuant thereto. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Luheda (Fegu), Tehsil Basu Kedar, District Rudraprayag, and belongs to a family traditionally engaged as Tirth Purohits at Shri Kedarnath. It is stated that prior to the natural calamity of the year 2013, the petitioner’s family owned and possessed a house/dharamshala at Shri Kedarpuri, which was damaged/demolished in the said calamity. Subsequent to the disaster, the State Government initiated rehabilitation 1 2026:UHC:2765 and reconstruction scheme for affected persons in Shri Kedarpuri area, pursuant to Government Orders dated 06.04.2015, 19.02.2018 and 22.01.2020. Under the said scheme, provision was made for reconstruction of buildings and allotment of constructed units to affected persons, subject to execution of agreements/affidavits between the affected persons and the competent authority. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner executed an agreement/affidavit dated 02.02.2023 with the respondents, whereby the petitioner handed over possession of his existing structure to the authorities for the purposes of reconstruction under the master plan. As per the said agreement, the petitioner claims entitlement to allotment of three rooms in the newly constructed Building No.Q2/A . It is the case on record that Building No.Q2/A has since been constructed by the respondents and comprises multiple rooms. It is also on record that certain public notices/advertisements were issued by the authorities, including a notice dated 18.12.2024 inviting objections, followed by a final allotment notification dated 31.01.2025 indicating allotment of rooms to various beneficiaries, including the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that despite repeated approaches and submission of a representation dated 22.08.2025, possession of three rooms has not been effectively handed over to him. On the other hand, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that allotment has been made in accordance with applicable Government Orders and the petitioner has already been allotted rooms as per the final notification, while also referring to administrative constraints and policy considerations governing the allotment process. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the action of the respondents in not allotting and handing over possession of three rooms to 2 2026:UHC:2765 the petitioner in Building No.Q2/A is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in clear breach of the agreement/affidavit dated 02.02.2023 executed between the parties. It is submitted that the petitioner had, in compliance of the rehabilitation scheme, voluntarily handed over possession of his constructed premises to the respondents with a legitimate expectation and assurance that in lieu thereof he would be allotted three rooms in the newly constructed building. 4. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents, having accepted the petitioner’s property and acted upon the agreement, are estopped from denying the corresponding obligation of allotment, and their present conduct is hit by the principle of promissory estoppel. Learned counsel further submits that the building in-question has already been constructed and comprises twelve rooms, out of which the petitioner is entitled to three rooms, yet the respondents are deliberately withholding the same and are instead attempting to allot the rooms to other persons. It is also contended that even in the public advertisement dated 18.12.2024 and subsequent records, the name of the petitioner has been reflected and his entitlement to three rooms in Building No.Q2/A has been acknowledged, which clearly demonstrates that the respondents themselves recognize the petitioner’s right. Despite such acknowledgment, no effective possession has been delivered to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner made repeated requests and approached the respondents on several occasions, and even submitted a detailed representation dated 22.08.2025, but the same has not been considered, thereby violating principles of fairness and natural justice. It is argued that the respondents are now attempting to defeat the 3 2026:UHC:2765 petitioner’s rightful claim by allotting all the rooms in the building to other persons, which is not only contrary to the agreement but also defeats the very object of the rehabilitation scheme. On these grounds, it is argued by the learned counsel that this Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot and hand over possession of three rooms to the petitioner in Building No.Q2/A and restrain them from allotting the same to any third party. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the same is misconceived and devoid of merit. It is contended that the rehabilitation and reconstruction work in Shri Kedarpuri has been undertaken strictly in accordance with Government Orders dated 06.04.2015, 19.02.2018 and 22.01.2020, and the allotment of rooms has been carried out in a transparent manner through a duly notified procedure. It is submitted that as per the scheme, agreements/affidavits were executed with affected persons, including the petitioner, and the construction and allotment of rooms have been done in accordance with the approved master plan. Learned counsel points out that Building No.Q2/A consists of a total of twelve rooms, constructed as per standardized design and specifications approved at the highest level, and no deviation or partitioning is permissible. 7. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that a provisional allotment notice dated 18.12.2024 was issued inviting objections from all stakeholders, followed by a final allotment notification dated 31.01.2025 after considering objections and conducting hearings. In the said final notification, three rooms have already been allotted to the petitioner, and thus 4 2026:UHC:2765 the grievance raised in the writ petition is factually incorrect. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that due to structural and planning constraints, it was not feasible to allocate rooms strictly in the manner claimed by the petitioner, and therefore, a uniform policy was adopted for all similarly situated persons. It is also contended that where there is any shortfall or adjustment required, the same is to be addressed through mutual consent or future allotment in adjoining constructions, as per the scheme. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not raise any objection within the stipulated time provided in the public notice process and has approached this Court belatedly. Moreover, the petitioner has already been granted commercial compensation as per applicable Government policy, and therefore, no prejudice has been caused to him. Learned counsel thus contends that no enforceable legal right of the petitioner has been violated and the present dispute, if any, involves questions of fact and contractual obligations, which are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is accordingly prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, this Court finds that the controversy in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was an affected person under the rehabilitation scheme formulated by the State Government pursuant to the disaster of 2013, and that an agreement/affidavit dated 02.02.2023 was executed between the petitioner and the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that under the said Scheme and the agreement executed pursuant thereto, the petitioner is entitled to allotment of three rooms in lieu of the structure handed over by him for reconstruction 5 2026:UHC:2765 purposes. However, the principal grievance raised by the petitioner is not merely regarding entitlement, but pertains to the manner of its implementation, namely, non-delivery of possession of three rooms in Building No.Q2/A and the alleged attempt of the respondents to allot the same to third parties. From the material on record, it transpires that a detailed procedure for allotment was undertaken by the respondents, which included issuance of a public notice dated 18.12.2024 inviting objections from all stakeholders, followed by consideration of such objections and issuance of a final allotment notification dated 31.01.2025. The name of the petitioner admittedly finds place in the said final notification and three rooms stand allotted to him as per the record. 10. In such circumstances, the dispute essentially narrows down to whether the petitioner has been given effective possession of the allotted rooms and whether he can insist upon allotment in a particular building or in a particular manner. This Court is of the considered view that the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, particularly with regard to actual possession, feasibility of allotment in a specific structure, and implementation of the rehabilitation scheme on the ground. These are matters which require factual adjudication and verification, and cannot be satisfactorily determined in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that while the writ court can intervene where there is arbitrariness, illegality or violation of statutory duty, it ordinarily does not enter into the arena of enforcing contractual obligations or supervising the minute implementation of policy decisions, especially where such implementation involves technical and administrative considerations. In the present case, the allotment process has been undertaken pursuant to 6 2026:UHC:2765 Government Orders and a uniform policy applicable to all similarly situated persons. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the said process is vitiated by mala fides or arbitrariness. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner’s name has been included in the final allotment list and that three rooms stand allotted to him, militates against the contention of complete denial of his rights. 11. So far as the insistence of the petitioner for allotment of specific rooms in Building No.Q2/A is concerned, this Court is of the view that such a claim cannot be enforced as a matter of right in writ jurisdiction. The rehabilitation scheme is a policy-based exercise involving multiple stakeholders, and the authorities must be left with reasonable discretion to implement the same in a workable and equitable manner. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the entitlement of the petitioner to three rooms is not in dispute. Once such entitlement has been recognized by the respondents themselves, it is expected of the authorities to ensure that the same is given meaningful effect and is not rendered illusory. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner. 12. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is observed that since the entitlement of the petitioner to allotment of three rooms under the rehabilitation scheme is not in dispute and stands reflected in the final allotment notification dated 31.01.2025, the respondents shall ensure that such entitlement is duly honoured in accordance with the applicable policy and Government Orders. 7 2026:UHC:2765 13. It is further provided that in case the petitioner has not been handed over effective possession of the allotted rooms, the competent authority shall take appropriate steps to ensure that either possession is delivered or suitable equivalent accommodation, in terms of the scheme, is made available to the petitioner within a reasonable period from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.04.2026 SK 8