http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6220 of 1999

PETITIONER: Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

RESPONDENT: Sangh Dass & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/2005

BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

Srikrishna, J.

       The appellant-corporation a Government company established  for the purpose of establishing hydel power projects in Himachal  Pradesh, impugns the judgment of the Division Bench of the High  Court of Himachal Pradesh directing it to grant certain benefits under  the Resettlement and rehabilitation  scheme formulated by the  corporation to the first respondent.          The first respondent was in possession of land to the extent of  11.4 bighas in Khasra Nos. 982, 984, 989 & 990 in village Jhakri,  Tehsil Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla. According to the first  respondent he had purchased  the said land from one Raj Kumar  Rajinder Singh, who was the original owner, on 21.8.1965.  There was  a dispute between the said Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh and the State  Government as to whether certain large tracts of land including the  land in question had vested in the State Government under the  provisions of the Himachal Pradesh abolition of Big Landed Estates  Act and Land Reforms Act, 1953, which came into effect on  26.1.1955.  During the pendency of that dispute the first respondent  claimed that he had been issued a Patta and given possession  on  21.8.1966.  According to the first respondent, although a sale  deed/Patta was executed it could not be registered since there was  prohibition against registration of documents during that period.  The  Patta itself recited: "if for some reason the land vests in the State  Government, in that eventuality the above mentioned persons i.e.  Respondents herein, will pay the compensation to the Government of  Himachal Pradesh. Hence this is written so that it is handy at the right  time". The issue as to whether the land in question had vested in the  State Government by reason of section 27 of the Act XV of 1954 was  settled by this Court by its judgment dated September 17, 1969  in  Civil Appeal Nos.1186 to 1191 of 1966,  by which this Court held that  the vesting under sub-section (1) of  section 27 takes place  immediately on the commencement of the Act, that thereafter under  sub-section (3) compensation had to be paid to the land owner in  accordance with provisions mentioned therein and that under sub- section (4) the State Government shall transfer the rights of ownership  to a tenant in possession  and cultivating the land only on payment of  compensation.   Since certain other questions had not been decided by  the High Court, the appeals were allowed and the decision of the  Judicial Commissioner was set aside and the case was remanded to  the High Court for decision on the other questions which had not been  decided.

       On 5.3.1998 a Notification was issued under section 4(1) of the  Land Acquisition Act by which the land in question was sought to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

acquired.  The Land Acquisition Collector made an award under the  provisions of the said Act. The compensation calculated by the  Collector was deposited by the appellant-Corporation and was  disbursed to the first respondent.  An amount of Rs.6,55,718 was paid  over to the first respondent pursuant to the award. It is the case of the  appellant-Corporation that under the Patta  dated 21.8.1965 the first  respondent had to pay back the said amount to the State Government,  but had failed to do so.  

       On 27.11.1991 the Board of Directors of the appellant- Corporation formulated a scheme for Resettlement and rehabilitation   of persons whose land had been  acquired for the benefit of the  Corporation.  The Resolution pertaining to the said scheme reads as  under : "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  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)."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       The first respondent applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,  Rampur, who had been appointed as  Resettlement and Rehabilitation   Officer, for issuance of ’landless certificate’.  Such a certificate was  issued by the SDM to the first respondent.  On the strength of the said  certificate the first respondent called upon the appellant-Corporation  to make available to him the benefits under the Resettlement and  rehabilitation  scheme.  The appellant, however, refused to do so on  the ground that the respondent herein was not the real owner of the  land which had been acquired. The first respondent moved to the High  Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of a writ petition  being CWP No.1783/96.  He pointed out in the petition that he had  continued to be in possession of the land and was earning his  livelihood from it; that his entire land has been acquired for the  benefit of the appellant-Corporation ; since there was an objection  raised with regard to his right to receive the compensation, the Land  Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the District Judge,  Rampur under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining  his entitlement; the District Judge Rampur held that the first  respondent was entitled to claim the entire amount of compensation  deposited in the Court; that inasmuch as the entire land held by the  first respondent had been acquired for the benefit of the appellant- Corporation, the respondent was entitled to the benefits flowing from  the  Resettlement and rehabilitation  scheme which was not being  made available to him.  The respondents opposed the prayer made in  the petition and inter alia contended that the first respondent was not  really the owner in possession of the land in question and he had no  title to the land.                   The High Court noticed that the District Judge had found that  the first respondent was entitled to claim compensation in respect of  the 11.4 bighas of land  in its award.   The Sub-Division Officer,  Rampur had certified that the entire land in possession of the first  respondent had been acquired for the Hydro Electric project and  that  there was no more land remaining with him.  There was also a  certificate issued by the Patwari of the concerned area certifying that  the first respondent had constructed his house on the land in question.   The High Court, in the circumstances, allowed the writ petition.         Hence, this appeal.         The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to raise the  issue as to whether the title of the land in question had vested in the  State Government.  In our view it is not necessary for us to enter into  this controversy. Nor, are we impressed by the reliance placed on the  undertaking in the Patta to the effect that if ultimately it is held that  the land belongs to the State Government the first respondent would  be liable to pay the compensation to the  State Government.  That is a  matter between the said Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh, the State  Government and the first respondent.  The writ petitioner was before  the High Court  only for claiming his rights flowing from the  Resettlement and rehabilitation  scheme.  The High Court justifiably  took the view that it was not open to the present appellant to challenge  the ownership of the first respondent especially when he had been  paid the compensation for acquisition of the land under the orders of  the District Judge, Rampur.          In our judgment the view taken by the High Court is correct and  needs no interference.  The whole purpose of the Resettlement and  Rehabilitation  scheme was to ensure that families rendered landless  by the  acquisition of land were made available some benefits apart  from the compensation payable under the provisions of the Land  Acquisition Act.  There does not seem to be any doubt that the first  respondent fulfilled all the requirements under the Resettlement and  Rehabilitation Scheme formulated by the Resolution of the  Corporation dated 27.11.1991.           In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

was justified in concluding that, irrespective of the dispute between  the State Government and the said Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh, the first  respondent was entitled to the benefits flowing from the Resettlement  and Rehabilitation  Scheme       

We see no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.  The  dismissal of this appeal shall be without prejudice to the rights of the  State Government with regard to its dispute with the said Raj Kumar  Rajinder Singh on the issue of vesting of the land.   No costs.