The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the Pariwar Register entry as it stood on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for identifying eligibility for rehabilitation benefits.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

“(a) That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to produce the entire records pertaining to the petitioner’s case and the impugned letter dated 23.6.2007 (Annexure P-8), may kindly be quashed.

(b) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to respondent No.3 directing him to consider all the documentary proof produce by the petitioner and to issue a certificate to her to the effect that she falls within the definition of a ‘landless family’ and is thus entitled to all the benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme promulgated by the respondents.

(c) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to grant all the benefits to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme in accordance with her entitlement.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was owner in possession of land measuring 0-09-90 hectares situated in village Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla which was acquired for the purpose of project by respondents No.1 and 2. According to her, there is an Award as well as Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan prepared by respondents No.1 and 2 for the persons, who have been displaced on account of construction of Nathpa Jhakri Project. The Award prepared by respondents No.1 and 2 (Annexure P2) contemplates that employment in the project area is to be provided to those persons who had been affected by construction of the project and the categories in order of priority includes persons who have been rendered completely landless as well as persons who have been left with land holding less than 5 bighas.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that, as a result of acquisition proceedings undertaken by respondent No.1 and 2, she has been rendered landless. According to her, land owned by her in Chak Gaura measuring about ½ bigha has been transferred and mutated in the name of her brother under family settlement and as a result of this coupled with the fact that earlier the land she used to own has been acquired by respondent No.1 & 2, she has been rendered landless.

4. According to her, respondent No.3 was appointed as Rehabilitation and Resettlement Officer by the State Government on 8.2.1994 to implement the terms of the Award as well as Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Scheme’) of respondent No.1 and 2. She applied to respondent No.3 for grant of benefits under the said Scheme. It is further her case that on 7.12.1999 Government of Himachal Pradesh clarified the definition of ‘family’ for the purpose of Scheme and as per said clarification, family means husband/wife who is entered as owner/co-owner in revenue record, children including step or adopted children and includes his/her parents and those brothers and sisters who are living jointly with him/her as per entry of Pariwar Register, as on the date of Notification Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (in short ‘Act’) When petitioner became aware of the said position and of the factum that she was eligible for the benefits under the Scheme, she applied to respondent No.3 on 19.5.2001 for conferring benefits upon her under the said Scheme including providing her a job under the Scheme in issue. She repeatedly visited the office of respondents and was assured on every occasion that efforts were being made to grant her benefits as per the Scheme.

5. As per the petitioner under the Scheme, each landless family was to be allotted developed agricultural land equivalent to the area acquired or 05 bighas whichever is less, as well as other benefits including suitable employment to one member of each displaced family. It is further her case that for the purpose of employment, it was not necessary that a family should be rendered landless. However, the petitioner, though having been rendered landless, was not being issued necessary certificate