IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 767 of 2008 (M/S) Maher Singh S/O Lachhoo R/O Village Tahsipur, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar and another. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Irrigation Department, Dehradun and four others. … Respondents. Sri B.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. Date May 06, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- A. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 6 not to construct canal through the plots of the petitioners Khasra no. 294 and 196/2 situated in Tashipur village in Roorkee. B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 6 to allot Abadi Land in village Tahsipur for the purpose of residence of the petitioners instead of Khasra No. 296 which is situated away from the Abadi land of Tashipur village Roorkee. C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 6 to the extent of acquiring the land of the petitioner which is Khasra no. 294 and 196/2 situated in Tashipur village in Roorkee. D. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case and award the cost to the petitioners. 2 Heard Sri B.B.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners at length and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record. Earlier the petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 1593 of 2007 (M/S) Maher Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and three others. In that writ petition, on the request made by learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abdul Wahid, petitioners were given liberty to make a fresh representation before the Collector Haridwar vide order dated 13-9-2007 and the Collector Haridwar was directed to decide the representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Representation was made by the petitioners before the Collector Haridwar on 5-10-2007 which was decided by order dated February 04, 2008 and it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the land of Khasra No. 296 of the same village was proposed to the given to the petitioners, which is adjoining to the land under acquisition. The Collector has specifically mentioned that the report of Revenue Inspector, dated 23-01-2008 also verified the above fact. It has also been further mentioned in the order that if the petitioners are not satisfied with the proposed land, the petitioners may receive compensation and if the petitioners have any objection against the compensation determined they may file objection under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the matter shall be referred to the reference Court for disposal thereof. According to the petitioners, they purchased two plots of Khasra No. 294 M. and 196/2 M. measuring 341.54 Sq.Mt. and 345.8 Sq.mt. respectively situated in village Tashipur through sale deed from one Yashpal and the said land was proposed by the State Government to be acquired of the purposes of construction of Samanantar Dev Bandh Branch Feeder Channel by the Canal Department. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to 3 exchange of plots of their choice and the petitioners refused to take compensation for acquisition of their land of plot no. 294 M. and 196/2 M. The respondents ought to have allotted them Abadi land in village Tashipur Roorkee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly contended that the respondents have failed to obey the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1593 of 2007. This contention of the learned counsel is without legs. In the earlier order, just liberty was given to the petitioners to make a representation to the Collector. The Collector has not only decided the representation but has passed a well-reasoned order and that too in favour of the petitioners. The learned Collector has also given options to the petitioners that if they do not take the proposed land in lieu of the land under acquisition, they may get compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and further if they feel aggrieved due to inadequacy of compensation or otherwise, they may file objection and the matter would be referred to the reference Court under Section 18 of the said Act. I fail to understand as to how the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition can be said to have been disobeyed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the land proposed to be allotted to the petitioners is away from the Abadi, while the land of the petitioners was having Abadi potential. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable, because it is disputed question of fact whether the land proposed to be given to the petitioners in lieu of the land under acquisition is having Abadi potential or not. The writ court cannot record such a finding of fact. Only perversity or manifest error of law or jurisdictional error committed by the authority concerned can be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the petitioners have not assailed the Government Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present writ petition. From a perusal of the 4 impugned order passed by the Collector, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. When the petitioners are not aggrieved by the Government Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act, which are not under challenge, it cannot said that any legal right of the petitioners have been adversely affected as a consequence of acquisition of land by the Government. On the other hand, the Collector has already given all the options to the petitioners in the impugned order. In view of the discussion made in foregoing paragraphs, I am of the considered view that the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 5 6