IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 1310 of 2023 Darshan Lal Kothari … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents Mr. Vaibhav Trivedi and Ms. Vandana Singh, Counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State.

J U D G M E N T Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 31.10.2025. Today, the matter is listed on restoration application (MCC/5/2025). For the reasons indicated in the restoration application, the same is allowed. Order dated 31.10.2025 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.

2. According to petitioner, State Public Works Department constructed link road over his land without initiating acquisition proceedings. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner as per market value of the land along with panel interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its due till the date of payment in respect of the property measuring 950 square meters situated Khasra Khatauni No. 00054 (Fasli 1420-1425, Khasra No, 121 Kh) measuring 2695 hectare situated at Mauja Asthal Pargana Parvadoon Tehsil and District Dehradun acquired by the State of Uttarakhand.

(Contained as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition).

(ii) To direct the respondents to produce/supply the details of market value of the land/circle rate of the property in question along with rule/circular on the subject.

(iii) To award compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the petitioner.”

3. Learned State Counsel submits that the road was constructed after taking consent from the concerned Gram Sabha, however it appears that signature of the petitioner was missing from the agenda of the proposal. He further submits that even though the Public Works Department determined the amount payable as compensation to the petitioner, however petitioner is disputing the said amount and he is claiming that he is entitled to more amount. Learned State Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the averment made in para 7 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Shyam Singh, Joint Secretary, Public Works Department, Dehradun, which are extracted below:

“7. That as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court dated 27.04.2019, for Khatauni No. 0054 Khasra No. 121 B, area 950 square meter land of Mr Darshanlal Kothari. Joint Secretary, Public Works Department, Uttarakhand Government was nominated as inquiry officer to examine the records. On examination it was found that the consent letter (bearing signatures of 20 villagers) was given by the Gram Sabha for the construction of the advanced motor road but signature of Darshanlal Kothari was not taken, there was a discrepancy in the consent given by Mr. Kothari for the construction of the said road. There is no record available with the department which clearly shows that the construction work has been done by acquiring the land of Shri Darshanlal Kothari without his consent which is also mentioned in Shri Kothari's letter dated 23.10.2017. In pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 27.04.2019, an estimate of compensation amount of Rs 1,06,18,40000 was prepared. If the consent of Shri Kothari had been taken by the departmental officers at the time of acquisition of the land, then the compensation for Kothari's land would have been determined as per the rates fixed for compensation (the rate at which compensation has been given to other landowners) neither such situation would have arisen nor the department be liable for the said amount of compensation.

12. That in reply to the contents of para 5 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the land of the petitioner has been acquired on mutual consent, as such it was not duly acquired under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettle