IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 185 of 2009 Nar Dev Singh Panwar … Appellant Vs Director of Rehabilitation (Gramin) & others … Respondents Sri S.S. Negi, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, ACJ Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. By way of this special appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 25.08.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 259 of 2009 (M/S), Nar Dev Singh Panwar Vs Director Rehabilitation (Gramin), New Tehri & others. 2. Heard Sri S.S. Negi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – Nar Dev Singh Panwar seeking the relief for issuing the writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the 14.07.2008 passed by Director of Rehabilitation (City), Tehri Bandh Pariyojana, New Tehri. The writ petition came up for hearing and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18th June, 2009 dismissed the same on the ground that the writ petition lacks merit. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved a restoration/recall application for recalling the order dated 18th June, 2009 along with delay condonation application. The learned Single Judge condoned the delay and recall the order dated 18th June, 2009. Thereafter, learned Single Judge heard 2 learned counsel for the parties and dismissed the writ petition on merit vide judgment and order dated 25.08.2009. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this special appeal, which has been placed before us for disposal. 5. The Learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order dated 25.08.2009 has specifically held that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not state anything further than what was already in the knowledge of this Court while passing the order dated 18th June, 2009. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the land of the petitioner was taken by way of private negotiation through a sale deed. The learned Single Judge did not find any justification for modifying the order dated 18th June, 2009. Once the land in question was sold by the appellant/petitioner @ 70,000/- per Nali on the basis of the private negotiation then there was no justification on the part of the learned Single Judge to enhance the rate from 70,000/- to Rs. 2,08,000/-. The learned Single Judge has thus passed the just and proper order by not enhancing the rate of the land in question from 70,000/- to Rs. 2,08,000/- per Nali. 6. We do not find any ground for interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed. (B.S. Verma, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, ACJ) 24.09.2009 ASWAL