Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6218-6219 of 1999
PETITIONER:
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Dila Ram & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/2005
BENCH:
Shivaraj V. Patiln & B.N. Srikrishna
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Srikrishna, J.
The appellant is a statutory corporation and a joint venture
of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. For execution of a
power project of 1500 MW the appellant corporation acquired
lands in different areas of Himachal Pradesh. The land was
acquired for the appellant by the State Government acting under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On 5.3.1988 a preliminary
notification under the Act was issued for acquiring a large tract of
land in the State of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose stated
therein. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award on
27.2.1991 and paid the compensation payable to the land owners
including the present respondents.
On 27.11.1991 the appellant corporation formulated a
scheme for resettlement and rehabilitation of persons whose land
had been acquired. This was intended as an additional measure
of relief for the persons whose land had been taken away. The
scheme adopted by the Board of Directors of Corporation is in
the following terms:
"The Board discussed at length and approved the
plan for Resettlement and Rehabilitation of
persons being displaced due to construction of
NJPC at indicated below:
a) To allot developed agricultural land, to
each family, who is rendered landless,
equivalent to the area acquired or 5 bighas,
whichever is less. This 5 bighas would
include any land left with the family after
acquisition. This would be done only after
the certificate of his having become landless
is submitted duly signed by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Rampur.
b) To provide a house with a building up
plinth area of 45 sqm. to each landless family
whose house is acquired alternatively to pay
Rs. 45,000/- to each landless family, whose
house is acquired, and constructs his house at
his own cost, with a plinth area of 45 sqm. or
more. In case of such persons constructs less
than 45 sqm. plinth area, then the amount to
be given will be worked out in direct
proportion to the area of house constructed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
vis-‘-vis Rs.45,000/- as the cost of 45
sqm.plith area.
c) To provide water supply, electricity,
street light and approach paths in the
rehabilitation colonies at project cost.
d) To provide transportation at project cost
for physical mobilization of all the displaced
families, as soon as the houses get constructed
premises/shops allotted to any oustee on
preferential basis shall be utilized by the
oustee for his bonafide use only.
e) To provide suitable employment to one
members of each displaced family according
to his capability and qualifications subject to
availability of vacancies. However, persons
who are allotted shops would not be eligible
for benefit of employment and vice-versa.
f) To incur the estimated expenditure of
Rs.184 lacs on rehabilitation (Annexure VIII
of the Rehabilitation Plan)against an ad hoc
provision of Rs.18 lacs in Detailed Project
Report (September, 1986 price level)."
During 27.2.1991 to 4.7.91 the appellant acquired about 28
bighas of land which belonged to the family of the respondents
for the purpose of the project. The said land was held jointly by
the family of the respondents which consisted of the following :
BALA RAM
Sarani Ram Joban Das
(Son) (Son)
Hari (Wife)
Durga Singh Leela Devi Dila Ram Sunder Singh Tikam Devi Chitra Devi
(Son) (Daughers) (Respondent) (Respondent) (daughter) (daughter
)
Son Son
Dila Ram and Sunder Singh, the respondents in these appeals,
are the sons of Joban Dass, while Durga Singh is the son of Sarni
Ram. Sarni Ram and Joban Das are brothers and their father was Bala
Ram. Both Sarni Ram and Joban Dass were married to the same wife,
Hari. The revenue record showed the names of all the members of
the family as joint holders holding shares. It also showed that the land
was held for self cultivation by Sunder Singh, Dila Ram Chitra Devi
etc., co-sharers. This was the situation of the holding as on the date of
the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Durga Singh obtained "landless certificate" from the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate of the concerned area and applied to the
Resettlement and Rehabilitation Officer for benefits under the
Rehabilitation scheme. His application was scrutinized and accepted.
Consequently, the appellant corporation granted to Durga Singh all
the benefits under the scheme, including the benefit of employment to
his wife, in June 1996 itself. On 2.9.1996 the present respondents Dila
Ram and Sunder Singh, applied to the SDM Rampur for issuance of
"landless certificate" and sought from the appellant-corporation the
benefits under the Rehabilitation Scheme. They also issued a legal
notice to the appellant in this behalf. Their claims were rejected by
the corporation on the ground that only one member of the landless
family could be given the benefits under the Scheme. The appellant
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
contends that since the land acquired was a joint holding consisting of
12 members, and one of them had been given the benefit under the
scheme, there was no further obligation to make available such
benefits to any other member of the landless family.
The respondents filed two writ petitions before the High Court
praying for writs of Mandamus to direct the appellant to make
available the benefits of the Rehabilitation Scheme to the two
respondents Dila Ram and Sunder Singh.
On 5.12.1998 the Board of Directors of the appellant
Corporation passed a further resolution, which put the matters beyond
cavil. This resolution defines ’landless family’ as under:
"Landless family means and includes all members of
the family of the individual, joint holders co-sharers
whose name(s) appeared in one revenue account as on
the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and whose agricultural
land is acquired for Nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric Project
making them completely landless or their balance
agricultural land left after acquisition is less than 5
bigha. For this purpose agricultural land held anywhere
by the all such persons and their family members shall
be recokonedand members of the family shall include
his spouse (s) parents, sons, daughters, step sons and
step daughters. If more than one family is entered as
joint holders in land revenue record all of them shall be
treated as one landless PAF (Project Affected Family).
Person loosing land on acquisition of building and land
appurtenant thereto shall not be treated as landless PAF.
The landless PAF shall be certified by SDM, Rampur."
The High Court allowed the writ petitions by taking the view
that the benefits under the resettlement and rehabilitation plan had to
be given to the present respondents as they were living separately
from the family, and granted the reliefs sought.
Hence, these appeals.
The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the
details of the resettlement and rehabilitation scheme dated 27.11.91
as amended by the Resolution dated 5.11.1998 and submitted that the
corporation had discharged its obligations under the resettlement and
rehabilitation scheme way back in 1996 when Durga Singh,
admittedly a member of the family, had applied for and had been
granted the benefits thereunder. He contended that once such benefits
were made available to one member of the family which was jointly
holding the land acquired, there was no further obligation to give
such benefits to any other member of the family.
The learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings
of the High Court and urged that, as evidenced by the Panchayat
Pariwar register, Durga Singh was residing separately for the last 11
years and, therefore, was in a separate family. Consequently, he
urged that the respondents belonged to a different family even on the
date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, and therefore, the
benefit of the scheme had to be provided separately to the
respondents.
In our view, the High Court erred in accepting the contention of
the respondents that since Durga Singh was residing separately for
the last 11 years he could not be treated as a part of the family and his
holding had to be reckoned as if it was a holding of a separate family.
The High Court relied on some judgments referred with reference to
the concept of family under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893. In
our view, it was wholly unnecessary to refer to the statutory definition
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
of family given under the Partition Act. As far as the benefit under the
scheme is concerned, the only question which the High Court had to
determine was whether the respondents were eligible to any benefits
in terms of the scheme. The scheme is made applicable to "each
family which is rendered landless". The revenue records indicate that
the land was held jointly by Sunder Singh, Dila Ram and other
members of the family. Whether Durga Singh was residing separately
or not is wholly irrelevant and besides the issue. The test to be
adopted under the scheme was whether there was joint holding and
relationship as a family. The High Court seems to have understood
that the scheme was intended to give benefits to each member of the
landless family. If this interpretation were to be accepted, then the
corporation would have to provide more land for distribution to each
member of the landless family than, perhaps, even the total land
acquired. In the instant case, the corporation would have to provide
35 bighas of land, 7 houses and employment to 7 members of the
family, for acquiring only 28 bighas of land and one house. The High
Court seems to have fallen into an error in adopting the meaning of
’family’ from judgments, which were rendered in relation to Section
4 of the Partition Act and under the Rent Control Acts.
The scheme emphasizes joint holding and family relationship.
As long as these existed, the fact that any particular person was
residing separately, is of no consequence. Adjudged by this test,
Durga Singh was a part of the landless family whose land has been
acquired. Consequently, he having been first to apply, was given the
benefit under the resettlement and rehabilitation scheme. There was
no further obligation on the part of the corporation to provide any
more benefits thereunder.
The learned counsel for the Respondents contended that, Durga
Singh being a step brother, he had taken all the benefits under the
resettlement and rehabilitation scheme and deprived the other
members of the family. That is a matter of dispute inter se within the
family with which the appellant corporation is not concerned in any
way, nor could the High Court grant any relief based thereupon. It is
open to the other members of the family to take appropriate legal
action as they may be advised to seek a share in the benefits of the
resettlement and rehabilitation scheme which were made available
by the appellant to Durga Singh.
In the result, we find that the appellant is entitled to succeed.
The appeals are hereby allowed and the impugned judgments of the
High Court are set aside, but without costs.