IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2092 of 2010 (M/S) Shri Shashank Sharma .. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Mr. Pramod Belwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder, on behalf of the respondents. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. Pramod Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder on behalf of the respondents. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought the following relief- (a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 74,00,000/- per month to the petitioner with arrears and interest thereof calculating from 5.4.2006, i.e. the date of taking possession of Radha Mohan Wedding Point, situated at 24 Rajpur Road (now 16 Rajpur Road Block-II) Dehradun, Uttarakhand till the date of actual payment of compensation for his land, or in the alternative to provide the petitioner any other equivalent land with equivalent structure as the petitioner can start his business at any other place, or pay a monthly rent as per the market value of the carpet area of 37000 sq.ft. and/or return the property in the same form as it was taken from the petitioner and reimburse all his losses and /or (b) Pass any other or further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. According to the petitioner he owned Radha Mohan Wedding Point, situated at Rajpur Road, Dehradun, which was the 2 only source of his livelihood and the same has been acquired by the respondents and possession was taken on 5.4.2006, without passing any award or without making any payment, which is in violation of Section-16 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner has challenged the notifications issued U/Ss 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act by filing W.P. No. 393 (M/B) of 2005. There was no urgency to invoke urgency clause of Section 17(1) read with sub-section (4) of the Act and for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A , the writ petition was dismissed on 23.12.2005 and it was held that exercise of power under Section 17(1) of the Act by the State Government can not be said to be illegal or malafide. In another Writ Petition No. 196/2006 , Rajiv Berry & others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, the notifications were set aside by this Court on 1.3.2007. The State has preferred Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7402 of 2007, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the interim order to maintain status quo as of today and issued notices to other parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informed to the court that the above Special Leave Petition filed by him is pending for disposal. In the instant writ petition the petitioner sought the writ of mandamus directing the Government to pay a sum of Rs. 74,00,000/- per month with arrears of interest thereof from the date of possession till the date of actual compensation. Learned counsel also submitted that there is no such provision under the Land Acquisition Act to grant interim compensation to the petitioner, hence he has filed this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the respondents took possession of the land of petitioner without paying him a single penny thereby snatching his only source of livelihood and the action on the part of the respondents comes in the category of infringement of right to earn livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the State Government even did not deposit 80% amount of 3 compensation has been provided under the provision of Section 17 (3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 17(3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, reads as follows- “[(3-A)] Before taking possession of any land under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Collector shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3),- (a) tender payment of eight per centum of the compensation for such land as estimated by him to the persons interested entitled thereto, and (b) pay it to them, unless prevented by some one or more o the contingencies mentioned in Sec.31, sub-section (2), and where the Collector is so prevented, the provisions of Sec. 31, sub-section (2), (except the second proviso thereto), shall apply as they apply to the payment of compensation under that section.” In the instant writ petition nowhere it is pleaded that the State has not deposited the statutory amount of 80% U/S 17(3-A) of the Act, therefore, no direction can be given to deposit the said amount. The petitioner himself has challenged the notifications issued U/Ss 4 and 6 of the Act and the writ petition No. 393 of 2005 (M/B) was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23-12-2005, against which S.L.P. is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the SLP is yet to be heard by the Hon’ble Apex Court together with other S.L.Ps. and the legality of the notifications U/S 4 and 6 of the Act, is yet to be adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Land Acquisition Act in itself is a Special Act and compensation of the land or property acquired under the provision of this Act is to be awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the award of the S.L.O., he may make request to the Collector for reference to the Civil Court as per provision of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is well settled that if any thing is to be done in particular manner as has been provided in the Statute, the same be done in that manner. 4 Therefore the relief sought cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction. The present writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed summarily. Dated: 15-12-2010 (B.S.Verma, J. ) ISB