The court clarified that project-affected persons alleging entitlement under an earlier policy, rather than a superseding one, must be allowed to represent their claims; authorities are obliged to consider such representations and pass a reasoned order after hearing both affected persons and the public undertaking. This decision affirms and operationalizes procedural fairness for land acquisition cases and is binding precedent in Uttarakhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/1562/2025 of MUKAND SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010078332025 |
| Date of Registration | 03-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Type of Law | Administrative/Compensation (Land Acquisition by Public Undertakings) |
| Questions of Law | Whether landowners affected by a public project are entitled to earlier or latest compensation policies, and what process the authority must follow on such claims. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when project-affected persons claim compensation under an earlier “Collateral Damage Policy” and the public undertaking proposes to apply a later policy, the affected persons must be allowed to submit a fresh representation. The authority (Director, Rehabilitation) is obliged to decide such representation within a prescribed time, after hearing all parties, including the public undertaking. This ensures procedural fairness in the administration of compensation policies. The judgment does not decide entitlement to a particular policy but mandates fair consideration of the dispute through a reasoned order. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners’ land was submerged by Tehri Dam. They allege entitlement to compensation under the 2013 Collateral Damage Policy, while THDC seeks to apply its 2021 policy. The petitioners filed a representation in 2022. They requested that the authority be directed to decide their representation, or permit them to file afresh. |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7723 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and authorities handling land acquisition and rehabilitation disputes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Establishes that project-affected persons disputing the applicable compensation policy must be permitted a fresh representation to the authority, even if an earlier representation was made.
- Imposes a binding duty on the Director (Rehabilitation), Tehri Dam Project, to decide such representations within a fixed timeframe (eight months).
- Expressly directs that both the claimants and the concerned public authority (THDC) must be heard before reaching a decision.
- Does not resolve which compensation policy must be applied but strictly reinforces procedural fairness and rights of representation.
- Can be cited in similar cases involving disputes over retroactive/prospective application of administrative policies.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recognized that the crux of the dispute was whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the 2013 policy or must accept compensation per the 2021 policy being implemented by THDC.
- Acknowledging that representations had been made by the petitioners to the competent authority but a response or decision was pending, the court held it appropriate to permit a fresh representation to ensure the claimants’ case is heard fully and formally.
- The court put in place a clear process: any new representation made within two weeks must be decided by the Director (Rehabilitation) within the next eight months.
- The court required both sides—the petitioners and THDC—to be heard before any such decision is rendered, embedding principles of natural justice.
- The order is procedural: it leaves the substantive decision on entitlement to the authority, but mandates a time-bound, fair process.
- No prior precedents were expressly cited or overruled; the focus was effective implementation of administrative justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed their land was submerged under Tehri Dam and compensation has not been paid as per the 2013 Collateral Damage Policy formulated by THDC.
- Objected to THDC’s plan to pay only under the 2021 policy.
- Requested the court to direct the Director (Rehabilitation) to take a decision on their existing representation or permit a fresh representation.
Respondent (State/THDC)
- THDC is proceeding to offer compensation per the latest (2021) policy.
- Requested that any decision on compensation policy application be made after hearing THDC.
Factual Background
The case concerns project-affected persons whose land was submerged due to the construction of Tehri Dam. The petitioners alleged entitlement to compensation under the 2013 Collateral Damage Policy, but claimed that THDC was only willing to provide compensation as per its 2021 policy. The petitioners had already submitted a representation to the Director (Rehabilitation) on 22.09.2022 and sought the court’s intervention to ensure a decision.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment did not reference or interpret any specific statutory provisions. The focus was on the application of administrative policy and fair procedure in considering claims for compensation resulting from land acquisition by public project undertakings.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded. The order was issued unilaterally by the presiding single judge.
Procedural Innovations
- The court established a model timetable: any new representation filed within two weeks must be decided within eight months, ensuring accountability.
- Reinforced the procedural requirement that all affected parties, including the public authority, must be granted a hearing before any decision on competing compensation policy entitlement is reached.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms procedural requirements for administrative fairness and does not break from existing legal principles.
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7723