Rehabilitation benefits cannot be denied solely on revenue record dates without examining pre-existing inheritance rights.

The petitioner’s village, Nakot, was affected by the Tehri Dam Project. Following geological concerns in 2008, the displacement limit was extended to RL 950 meters, and an eligibility list for agricultural plots was finalized on 18.09.2009.

The petitioner is the legal heir of Padam Singh Rana, who died on 04.02.2004.

Although the petitioner’s name was not in the revenue records on the cut-off date of 18.09.2009, it was recorded via mutation on 25.09.2009.

Based on this, the Director Rehabilitation approved his eligibility in 2012 and allotted him an agricultural plot in 2013.

Subsequently, the State issued orders in late 2013 requiring reconsideration of all allotments made after 25.10.2012 without prior State approval.

Following an inquiry, the Director Rehabilitation passed the impugned order dated 28.06.2022, cancelling the allotment and rejecting the petitioner’s claim solely because his name was absent from the revenue records as of 18.09.2009.

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s rehabilitation claim based solely on the date of his entry in the revenue records was legally sustainable

2. Whether the Director Rehabilitation failed to exercise proper discretion by ignoring relevant factors such as inheritance, residence, and the declaratory nature of mutation entries

The Court primarily applied the principles of Administrative Law regarding the "non-application of mind" and the requirement for a "holistic and reasoned determination" in quasi-judicial orders.

It relied on the legal principle that mutation entries are declaratory and fiscal in nature, recognizing pre-existing rights rather than creating them.

The Court also emphasized the Principles of Natural Justice (audi alteram partem), holding that orders entailing serious civil consequences must demonstrate independent reasoning.

Jurisdiction was exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that the impugned order was founded on a "singular parameter"—the absence of the petitioner’s name from revenue records on 18.09.2009.

The Court reasoned that the authority failed to consider that the petitioner’s right to the land may have accrued via inheritance upon his father’s death in 2004, making the 2009 mutation merely a formal recognition of a pre-existing right.

It further noted that the authority ignored the petitioner’s claim of being a project-affected person by virtue of being a legal heir and did not investigate factual questions regarding his residency in Village Nakot.

The Court held that while administrative finality and cut-off dates are significant in rehabilitation schemes, the mechanical application of a single criterion without considering inheritance or the circumstances of the mutation constitutes a non-application of mind.

Consequently, the order was deemed unsustainable as it lacked a reasoned examination of the petitioner’s specific status.

The matter was remitted to the Director Rehabilitation to reconsider the petitioner's claim afresh.

The Court directed the authority to specifically examine: (i) the claim of inheritance arising prior to 18.09.2009; (ii) the petitioner’s status as a resident of Village Nakot; (iii) the legal effect of the mutation dated 25.09.2009; and (iv) the applicability of relevant Government Orders.

The petitioner must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for a hearing and to submit evidence.