IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1899 of 2007 (M/S) Deva Nand S/O Sri Ram Sharan, and 12 others. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary (Abda Prabandhak) Uttaranchal Shasan, Dehradun and two others. … Respondents. Sri Vinay Kumar & Sri Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.C.Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Date June 06, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri Vinay Kumar and Sri Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.C.Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to include the petitioners in the list of landslide affected families for the purposes of distribution of relief. According to the petitioners, in the month of July 1994, heavy land slide took place in the village of petitioners and consequently the residential house of the villagers were damaged and their agricultural land also turned into garbage of land-slide. In the year 2005, a package of relief was introduced under the Prime Minister of India Scheme for Rehabilitation of the villagers of village Thandi. Pursuant to the declaration of special relief package, the district administration of Uttarakashi constituted a committee for distribution of relief to the affected families of the village. Petitioners have alleged that the relief was not distributed by the District Administration in a proper manner. 2 The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are affected from the landslide. They also deserve to be considered for grant of compensation/relief, but the same was denied by the respondents on the ground that the petitioners are living in different Toks of the same village, while the persons who are living in different Toks of the village were included in the list of affected families for grant of compensation and they were granted compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit and along with the counter affidavit, they have annexed a list as Annexure CA.2. At Serial No. 23, there is mention of Sri Pramod Singh, Dayal Singh, Chandan Singh, Soban Singh and Dhanpal Singh, sons of Inder Singh, who are shown to be residing in Khandhar Tok of the same village Thandi and at Sl. No. 24, Smt. Deoki wife of Mal Chand, Nag Chand, Shyamchand son of Jethu have been shown to have been residing in (Khander) Bhardar Tok of the same village and all of them have been granted compensation. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri K.C.Tiwari, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State and after perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit including the Lists of affected families annexed as Annexure CA-2 and Annexure CA-4, it is evident that the persons whose names find mention at serial nos. 23 and 24 and who were living in different Toks of the same village have been granted compensation, while the petitioners were denied the compensation. The stand of the petitioners before this Court is that they are similarly situated persons as those mentioned at Serial Nos. 23 and 24 of the Lists Annexure CA-2 and CA-4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to make a fresh representation before the authority concerned on the ground that the case of the 3 petitioners be also considered in view of the fact that they have been living in different Toks of the same village and similarly situated persons like Sri Pramod Singh, Dayal Singh, Chandan Singh, Soban Singh and Dhanpal Singh, sons of Inder Singh, who are shown to be residing in Khandhar Tok of the same village Thandi, whose names find mention at serial no. 23 and Smt. Deoki wife of Mal Chand, Nag Chand, Shyamchand son of Jethu, whose names find mention at serial no. 24 of the lists Annexure CA-2 and Annexure CA-4 have already been granted compensation. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners may file representation within a period of three weeks from today and the Collector/District Magistrate, Uttarkashi- respondent no.2 is directed that if a representation is so made by the petitioners, their case be reconsidered and decided afresh thereafter taking into considerations the observations made in the body of this judgment within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of representation along with copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5