Uttarakhand High Court
31 March vs Union Of India Through Railway Ministry … on 31 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:2268
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2320 of 2018
31 March, 2026
Kalam Singh --Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through Railway Ministry and Ors.
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Bhawna Kanwal, learned counsel holding brief of
Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, learned counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Mukesh Kaparuwan, learned counsel holding brief
of Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Devendra Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.3.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present writ petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a
direction commanding the respondents to re-determine the
compensation in respect of his house and shops acquired
for the Rishikesh-Karnprayag Railway Line Project, and
further to extend him the benefits of rehabilitation and
resettlement as provided under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act of 2013”).
2. The brief facts of the case are that, petitioner-
Kalam Singh, is a resident of Village Dobh, Post
Gholteer, District Rudraprayag. It is averred that
petitioner had constructed a residential house and certain
shops in the said village and he along with his family
members was residing therein and carrying on business.
It is not in dispute that his property, including the
structures situated thereon, has been acquired for the
1
2026:UHC:2268
purposes of construction of Rishikesh-Karnprayag Railway
Line Project. Notifications under provisions of the Act of
2013 were issued and an award came to be passed.
Pursuant to the said award, compensation in respect of
acquired property has been determined and the amount
has been deposited in the bank account of petitioner.
Petitioner has raised a grievance with regard to the
determination of compensation, including the assessment
of structures and extent of benefits extended under the
provisions of the Act of 2013. It is also on record that
petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.05.2018 to
the concerned prescribe authority.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
action of respondents is arbitrary and contrary to
provisions of the Act of 2013. It is argued that petitioner
had constructed his residential house and shops in the
year 2012-2013, however, respondents have wrongly
assessed the same by taking the year of construction as
2006, thereby substantially reducing the amount of
compensation payable to him.
4. He further submits that respondents have failed
to take into account all existing structures, particularly,
the cow shed, which has resulted in denial of legitimate
compensation to petitioner. He submits that such
omission is in clear violation of statutory mandate of the
Act of 2013.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner also argued that
petitioner has been deprived of benefits of rehabilitation
and resettlement as provided under the Second Schedule
of the Act of 2013, despite the fact that petitioner has lost
both his residential house and his source of livelihood. It
is submitted that the provisions relating to rehabilitation
and resettlement are mandatory in nature and the
respondents cannot withhold the same.
2
2026:UHC:2268
6. He further argued that petitioner had submitted
a representation bringing these grievances to the notice of
authorities, however, no decision has been taken thereon,
compelling petitioner to approach this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and
2 submits that compensation in respect of the acquired
property has been duly determined in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of 2013 and the amount has already
been deposited in the bank account of petitioner, which
has also been accepted by him. He further submits that
the grievances raised by petitioner pertain to the
correctness of the valuation, measurement of structures
and determination of compensation, all of which are
essentially disputed questions of fact. Such issues, it is
contended, cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. He further contends that the Act of 2013
provides a complete mechanism for redressal of
grievances, and in case the petitioner is dissatisfied with
the award, he has an efficacious statutory remedy of
seeking a reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013
before the competent authority. Without availing such
remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court,
which renders the writ petition not maintainable.
9. It is also contended by him that benefits under
the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme are to be
determined in accordance with law and the same shall be
extended to the eligible persons in due course. The
respondents deny any illegality or arbitrariness in the
action taken by them.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the material available on record, this
Court finds that the primary grievance of petitioner relates
to the alleged improper determination of compensation,
3
2026:UHC:2268
including valuation of structures, year of construction and
non-inclusion of certain constructions. It is not in dispute
that an award has already been passed under the
provisions of the Act of 2013 and the compensation
amount determined thereunder has been deposited in the
bank account of petitioner. Petitioner has accepted the
said amount. Once an award has been passed and acted
upon, and the compensation has been accepted by the
petitioner, correctness of such determination ordinarily
cannot be permitted to be reopened in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. The issues raised by the petitioner,
particularly with regard to the year of construction,
measurement of structures and adequacy of
compensation, are essentially disputed questions of fact,
which would require appreciation of evidence and factual
determination. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken by
this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
11. Further, the Act of 2013 provides a complete
statutory mechanism for redressal of grievances relating to
the award, including a remedy of reference under Section
64 of the Act. The petitioner, instead of availing said
remedy, has approached this Court directly. It is well
settled that where an efficacious alternative remedy is
available, this Court would ordinarily decline to exercise
its extraordinary jurisdiction. Insofar as the grievance
relating to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits is
concerned, the same also involves determination of
entitlement on the basis of relevant facts and applicable
provisions, which is required to be examined by the
competent authority in accordance with law. No
exceptional circumstance has been shown so as to
warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.
4
2026:UHC:2268
12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present writ petition is not
maintainable, being hit by the availability of an alternative
statutory remedy, involving disputed questions of fact, and
the conduct of the petitioner in accepting the awarded
compensation.
13. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed.
However, it is open to petitioner to avail such remedy as
may be available to him under law, including seeking a
reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, if so
advised.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
31.03.2026
PN
PREETI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331
bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE0
64498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC,
cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2026.04.02 10:42:35 +05’30’
5
