2026:UHC:3857 SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No.1238 of 2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Abhijay Negi, Ms. Snigdha Tiwari and Mr. Priyansh Mittal, learned counsel for petitioners. 2. Mr. Devendra Pant and Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 3. According to petitioners, they are owners of land situate in District Tehri Garhwal, which is to be acquired for construction of Koti- Dobra Tourism Road. The grievance raised by petitioners is that the authorities have valued properties belonging to petitioners at a nominal rate in disregard to the market value of these properties. 4. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the advertisement dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure 1; Page 18 to 21) vide which incorrect details with regard to the land holdings/ constructions of the petitioners have been notified and promulgated by the respondent No.3. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to consider passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing a personal hearing to the petitioners with regard to the letter dated 22.10.2024, 18.08.2025 & 20.12.2025 (Annexure-4, 5 & 6 respectively; Page 45 to 50). 3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the compensation as per the applicable circle rate to each of the petitioners having regard to what is being 2026:UHC:3857 acquired by the state government. 5. Learned State Counsel however submits that the writ petition is premature and misconceived. He submits that the price of the acquired properties shall be assessed in proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 while determining the compensation to be paid to the owners. 6. He further submits that writ petition is pre-emptive in nature and petitioners want to achieve some other purpose by filing this writ petition which may help them in proceedings which will be held at a later stage for determining the amount payable as compensation. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. There is no cause of action available to petitioners for maintaining this writ petition. Adjudication regarding amount payable as compensation shall be made in proceedings under relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act, 2013. Thus, the relief as prayed by petitioners cannot be granted at this stage. However, petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed in- limine. 9. Pending application also stands disposed of. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 19.05.2026 PN