IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 16 of 2009 Shiv Singh Rawat …Appellant. Versus The State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. A.D. Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The appellant is a resident of District Uttarkashi. In the years 2003-04, the appellant was a tenant and was running a shop in the said area. The area, where the tenant had his shop was devastated by a natural calamity as a consequence of a major land slide of “Varunavat Parwat”. The shop in which the appellant was an occupant as tenant was also damaged. The appellant on account of the loss suffered by him, sought compensation. He also sought preferential allotment of shop, as and when the same would be constructed by the respondents. 2. Since the prayers made by the appellant were not being acceded to, the appellant along with six other persons approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 941 of 2007. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 14.8.2007, whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim made by the appellant and six other persons (through their representation dated 14.9.2007) and thereafter, pass a speaking order. 3. In compliance with the direction issued by this Court on 14.8.2007, the respondents passed an order dated 2.11.2007. The claim of the appellant for 2 compensation was declined. However, the claim of the appellant for preferential allotment of shops was acceded to. It would also be relevant to mention that the claim of the appellant was considered by a high powered Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State. 4. The order dated 2.11.2007 was assailed by the appellant along with six other persons by approaching this Court through Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2577of 2007. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 28.12.2007. The instant Special Appeal has been filed by the appellant so as to impugn the order dated 28.12.2007 rendered by the learned Single Judge (while disposing of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2577 of 2007). 5. During the course of hearing, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant must be compensated for the loss suffered by him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that all individuals who suffer as a consequence of a natural calamity, must under all circumstances, be compensated by the Government. 6. We have considered the solitary submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The shop in which the appellant was housed as a tenant, was damaged as a consequence of a natural calamity. Although compensation may be permissible to the owner of the premises, but we fail to understand the basis on which the appellant, who was merely a tenant, is claiming compensation. In spite of the fact that the appellant was merely a tenant, the order dated 2.11.2007 allows the appellant a preferential claim for allotment of a shop out of 42 shops being constructed by the respondents, in place of the shops which were devastated 3 by the calamity. This, in our view, constitutes sufficient compensation to the appellant. 7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant Special Appeal and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 27.3.2010 Rathour