Authority must consider all relevant factors, including inheritance and residency, when determining eligibility for rehabilitation benefits; a singular focus on revenue records is insufficient and may violate natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Director Rehabilitation, Tehri Dam Project (Respondent No.1), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of rehabilitation benefits has been rejected and the agricultural plot earlier allotted in his favour has been cancelled.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Village Nakot, Patti Raika, District Tehri Garhwal, came within the ambit of the Tehri Dam Project. Initially, the village was treated as partially affected up to RL 835 meters pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 in the year 1999, followed by an award in 2003. Subsequently, owing to geological concerns and landslides noticed after the filling of the reservoir in the year 2005, a committee constituted in the year 2008 recommended displacement of villages up to RL 950 meters. In furtherance thereof, a fresh identification exercise was carried out and a list of eligible persons for grant of agricultural plots was finalized and approved by the Director Rehabilitation on 18.09.2009. The petitioner claims to be the son of late Padam Singh Rana, who died on 04.02.2004. It is stated that though the petitioner is a legal heir, his name was not initially recorded in the revenue records due to certain mutation discrepancies, which were later corrected vide order dated 25.09.2009 passed by the competent revenue authority. It is the case of the petitioner that upon consideration of his claim, the then Director Rehabilitation approved his eligibility on 26.10.2012, and pursuant thereto, an agricultural plot bearing No. 14 at Aam Bagh, Pashulok, Rishikesh was allotted to him on 08.02.2013.However, subsequently, the State Government issued orders dated 26.10.2013 and 18.11.2013, inter alia providing that allotments made without prior approval of the State Government after 25.10.2012 would stand cancelled and the cases would be reconsidered afresh. Thereafter, upon inquiry by a committee, the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 came to be passed, cancelling the petitioner’s allotment and rejecting his claim for rehabilitation. Hence, he has approached this Court by means of present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. It is argued that the petitioner is an undisputed legal heir of late Padam Singh Rana and his exclusion from the revenue records prior to 25.09.2009 was merely on account of an administrative lapse, which stood rectified by a lawful mutation order. It is contended that mutation entries are declaratory and fiscal in nature and merely recognize pre-existing rights, therefore, the petitioner’s entitlement cannot be defeated on the hyper-technical ground that his name was not reflected in the revenue record as on 18.09.2009.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the competent authority, i.e., the Director Rehabilitation, had approved the petitioner’s eligibility and an allotment had been made in his favour in the year 2013, a valuable right had accrued to the petitioner, which could not have been taken away after a lapse of several years without cogent reasons. Learned counsel also contends that the impugned order has been passed mechanically, solely relying upon the date of revenue entry, w