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.