Important pointIn Land Acquisition cases, the scheme for Rehabilitation and Resettlement of persons whose land had been acquired made applicable to ‘each family which is rendered landless’, the test to be adopted under the scheme was whether there was joint holding and relationship as a family.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 23 and 30—Partition Act, 1893—Section 4—Scheme for resettlement and rehabilitation of persons whose land had been acquired Acquisition of a large tract of land in State of Himachal Pradesh for execution of a power project—Land Acquisition Collector made an award and paid the compensation payable to land owners including respondents—Land held by family of respondents jointly which consisted of 12 members—Revenue record showed names of all the members of the family as joint holders holding shares—Appellant Corporation granted to one member ‘D’ of the family all the benefits under the scheme—Claims of respondents, other members of the family were rejected by the Corporation on the ground that only one member of the landless family could be given the benefits under the Scheme—Writ petitions—High Court allowed the writ petitions holding that benefits under the resettlement and rehabilitation plan had to be given to respondents as they were living separately from the family and granted the reliefs sought—Whether High Court was justified in holding that since ‘D’ was residing separately he could not be treated as a part of the family—(No)—Test to be adopted under the scheme was whether there was joint holding and relationship as a family.
Held : 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 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. (Paras 11 and 12)

Judgment

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.

2. 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 vis-a-vis Rs. 45,000/- as the cost of 45 sqm. plinth 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).”

3. 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 (Son) (Daughters) (Respondent) (Respondent) Son Son

Tikam Devi Chitra Devi (daughter) (daughter)

4. 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 w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document