Non-residency in disaster-prone zones and ownership of alternative housing disqualifies claimants from rehabilitation aid under Policy 2021.

The Petitioner, representing several Scheduled Caste families from Village Sari, Rudraprayag, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking compensation of ₹4,25,000 each for eight individuals affected by a landslide on February 20, 2022

While the State paid ₹4,00,000 to 13 affected families, it denied compensation to seven families (represented by the eight individuals named)

The State responded via counter-affidavit, asserting that based on a Joint Inspection, these individuals failed to meet the eligibility criteria under the state's rehabilitation policy, as they either lived in joint households with existing beneficiaries or owned residences in safe zones

1. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the eight specified individuals under the Rehabilitation Policy, 2021

2. Whether the court should continue the present PIL proceedings given the factual disputes and lack of direct challenge by the aggrieved individuals

Uttarakhand Rehabilitation Policy, 2021

Rule 26 provides that separate families living in the same house are entitled to independent aid only if they are recorded separately in the Parivar Register and possess distinct Ration Cards

Clause 29 stipulates that families who have not normally resided in the identified sensitive zone for the last five years and have built residences elsewhere are ineligible for financial assistance

The Court examined the State's specific justifications for denial: Vinod Kumar was ineligible because he was recorded in the Family Register under his father, Nand Lal, constituting a single family unit

Nand Lal and six others were denied aid because Joint Inspections revealed they owned houses in other safe locations (such as Village Jhalimath) and were not residing in the sensitive zone for the requisite period

The Court noted that the Petitioner offered only a "general denial" in the rejoinder without providing specific evidence to rebut the state’s findings

Crucially, the Court observed that the affected individuals themselves had not come forward to challenge the State's findings or the application of the Policy

The proceedings were closed; however, the Court clarified that this closure does not prejudice the rights of the individuals to challenge the denial of compensation in their personal capacity before an appropriate forum

All pending applications were disposed of