IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1748 of 2007 (M/S) Sher Singh S/O Ram Chander and six others. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal and three others. … Respondents. Sri S.K.Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Vinod Nautiyal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State-respondents. Date May 02, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri S.K.Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinod Nautiyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to pay the compensation for Bhumidhari land taken for making river side (Tatbandh) of Baigul riverbank as per the current circle rate to the petitioners. Prayer has also been made to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to give alternative land of same value and nature to the petitioners. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners claims themselves to be Bhumidhar with transferable rights of the plot numbers mentioned in paragraph no.2 to 8 to the writ petition. The petitioners have annexed the extracts of Khatauni and Khasara with the memo of writ petition. According to the petitioners, they were in possession of the land mentioned in the writ petition. The respondents without issuing Notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 2 and without public notice acquired the land and started constructing embankment on riverside. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it was specifically stated in paragraph 2(e) and 7 that so far as the petitioners are concerned, their land does not fall within the area where the construction of embankment is being done. It has been stated in paragraph no. 7 that the land of the petitioners is situated at a distant place ranging from 300 mt. to 500 mt. away from the area of embankment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Rudrapur has written a letter to Assistant Cane Commissioner, Rudrapur to remove the sugarcane from the fields and Parchi be issued for supply of sugarcane to the farmers whose names have been given at the foot of the letter and the name of petitioner no. 1 Sher Singh finds place at serial number no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that representation was also made by the petitioners before the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that the construction of embankment was not made in the land of the petitioner, rather it was made in the land of other farmers and with their consent, the land is being acquired and compensation is to be given to those farmers whose land is within the zone of construction of embankment. 3 No rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioners. It is a disputed question of fact whether the land of the petitioners comes within the constructed area of embankment. This fact can only be determined by the evidence and the petitioners have an alternate remedy to file a civil suit. In the civil suit, after survey of the land, it can be determined whether the construction was made by the respondents over the land of the petitioners or not. The allegation of the petitioners that the construction of embankment has been made on their land is not admitted to the respondents and this fact has to be proved by the petitioners. No mandamus can be granted in their favour until it is established that the land of the petitioners was taken for construction of embankment along the river. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5 6 7