WPMS/2269/2012 of TEHRI BANDH PRABHAVIT SANGHARSH SAMITI and ANOTHER Vs UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 2269 of 2012 (M/S)

Tehri Bandh Prabhavit Sangharsh Samiti & another

....Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & others

.…Respondents

Mr. Amar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondent no.5.

Per: Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J

Heard.

2. According to the averments made in the writ petition, about 100 villages of Vikas Khand Pratap Nagar, District Tehri and about 20 villages of Vikas Khand Dunda, Region Gajra were the most affected areas due to submergence of their houses and land under Tehri dam. The main approach of these villages has totally submerged due to which connectivity of these villages is adversely affected and grave economical, sociological and geological problems are being faced by the residents of these villages. There are about 22,000 families, which have been affected.

3. The residents of the area have highlighted their problems by filing representations before the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. The District Magistrate has favourably considered the case of the petitioners vide Annexure Nos.1 and 3. However, despite that, the grievance of the petitioners has not redressed by the State Government. They were not even paid the agreed compensation of Rs.1.50 lakh/ per family, as per the meetings held on 17.05.2006 and on 08.08.2009.

4. Petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1198 of 2010 (M/S) and the Court directed the Chief Secretary of the State Government or any other officer deputed by Chief Secretary to take decision on the

recommendation of the District Magistrate/Rehabilitation Director in accordance with law. However, the fact of the matter is that their representations were rejected vide Annexure No.9 in the month of January, 2011.Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.426 of 2011 (M/S). It was disposed of on 10.01.2012 by issued mandatory directions.

5. The case of the petitioner was rejected by the Secretary to the Government of India on 01.08.2012

6. The representations have been rejected without taking into consideration the recommendation made by the District Magistrate as well as the various agreement entered into between the parties.

7. The Rehabilitation is serious matter. The respondents should have taken humane approach while considering the case of the petitioners. The petitioners have not been paid adequate compensation. Their connectivity has also been affected.

8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

AIR 1986 SC 847, “State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma and others,” have held that right to roads in the hilly areas is fundamental right. Their Lordships have held as under:

“11. It appears to us that in the facts of this case, the controversy lies within short compass. It is well settled that the persons who have applied to the High Court by the letter are persons affected by the absence of usable road because they are poor Harijan residents of the area, their access by communication, indeed to life outside is obstructed and/or prevented by the absence of road. The entire State of Himachal Pradesh is in hills and without workable roads, no communication is possible. Every person is entitled to life as enjoined in Article 21 of the Constitution and in the facts of this case read in conjunction with Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and in the background of Article 38(2) of the Constitution every person has right under Article 19(1)(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India and he has also the right under Article 21 to his life and that right under Article 21 embraces not only physical existence of life but the quality of life and for residents of hilly areas, access to road is access controversy lies within short compass. It is well settled that the persons who have applied to the High Court by the letter are persons affected by the absence of usable road because they are poor Harijan residents of the area, their access by communication, indeed to life outside is obstructed and/or prevented by the absence of road. The entire State of Himachal Pradesh is in hills and without workable roads, no communication is possible. Every person is entitled to life as enjoined in Article 21 of the Constitution and in the facts of this case read in conjunction with Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and in the background of Article 38(2) of the Constitution every person has right under Article 19(1)(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India and he has also the right under Article 21 to his life and that right under Article 21 embraces not only physical existence of life but the quality of life and for residents of hilly areas, access to road is access

to life itself. These propositions are well settled. We accept the proposition that there should be road for communication in reasonable conditions in view of our constitutional imperatives and denial of that right would be denial of the life as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution. To the residents of the hilly areas as far as feasible and possible society has constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication.”

9. The members of the petitioner- Samiti have fundamental right to get adequate compensation for loss of basic amenities including roads etc.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand, to decide the case of the petitioners within three months from today by taking into consideration the recommendations made by the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal and the State Government shall also construct sufficient numbers of roads in the area to provide better connectivity, subject to the availability of funds, within two years from today.

NISHANT

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)23.08.2017