IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Nikki Devi D/o Shri Lala Ram – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 420 of 2019
Decided On : 14-11-2022
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Resettlement & Rehabilitation Scheme - Family - Second Appeal - Civil Suit - Resettlement Grant - Landless Grant - Eligible Family Grant - Defendant acquired immoveable properties under Land Acquisition Act for public purpose namely construction of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project in area of Villages Harnora and Kasol in District Bilaspur, H.P - Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, for purposes of such acquisition was issued on 23.11.2000 - Merely absence of name of plaintiff in Parivar Register on date of issuance of Section 4 of Notification would not disentitle her from benefits of R&R Scheme. (Para 12).
Finding of the Court: It cannot be taken to mean that where the family includes only a single person, he/she would not be entitled to the benefits of the scheme even though qualified to be an “oustee.” Even a single member can constitute a separate family. In 2009, the name of plaintiff was recorded in the family register maintained by the Gram Panchayat, Harnora as a single member of the family. It was rightly done as the plaintiff after divorce was not obliged to live or reside with her parents or brothers/sisters. She had every right to live separately and constitute the single member family. Even if the single person family does not have his/her name recorded in Parivar Register but was otherwise qualified to be an oustee, he could not be denied the benefits of the scheme.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
1. Heard.
2. By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, judgment and decree dated 03.05.2019 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 19/13 of 2018, affirming judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 41/1 of 2014, is sought to be assailed by the appellant.
3. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status which they held before the learned trial Court. Respondent No. 1 herein, was the plaintiff, whereas the appellant and proforma respondent herein, were the defendants 1 and 2 respectively.
4. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of appeal are that defendant No. 1 acquired immoveable properties under the Land Acquisition Act for public purpose namely construction of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project in the area of Villages Harnora and Kasol in District Bilaspur, H.P. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, for the purposes of such acquisition was issued on 23.11.2000.
5. 16 biswas of land including the structure thereon, owned by the plaintiff, was also acquired. Plaintiff was paid Rs. 5,72,826.27 as compensation for land and Rs. 1,13,564 for structure standing thereon.
6. A Tripartite Agreement Ext. DW-1/B, had been executed between defendants as first and second parties thereto and Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board as third party on 26.02.2000. Clause 3.01 of the agreement Ext.DW-1/B provided for Resettlement & Rehabilitation issues of Kol Dam oustees. Defendant No. 2 had undertaken Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme (R&R), as detailed in Annexure-II to the agreement and defendant No. 1 had undertaken to extend all necessary assistance and inputs in implementing the R&RS. The costs of R&RS were to be incurred by defendant No. 2.
7. The Scheme for Rehabilitation and Resettlement for the oustees of Koldam HEP was detailed in Annexure-II to the agreement. As per Clause 2.1.1 the entitlement of Resettlement grant was as under:
Each oustee family which will be rendered houseless on account of acquisition of land/house for the KOL DAM Project shall be entitled to:
(a) A compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in the form of houseless grant.
(b) Infrastructural facility in the oustee colony which will include developed house site measuring 50’ x 40’ (one plot for each family), electrification for street lights line for drinking water suitable, pacca approach road/path and Sulabh Sauchalaya.
Families who do not opt for plot of land (including other infrastructure) will be entitled for Rs. 25,000/- as infrastructure grant in the same line.”
8. Similarly, the landless grant and eligible family grant was to be provided in terms of Clauses 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of Annexure-II as under:
The families who are rendered landless on account of acquisition of their land shall be eligible for landless grant in the following manner:
(i) Family which having more than 5 Bighas land rendered landless - Rs 50,000/-.
(ii) Family whose land holding was less than 5 Bighas and rendered landless Rs. 45,000/-.
(iii) Families who are left with less than one Biswa after acquisition will be treated as landless.
2.2.2 Eligible Family Grant
Eligible families shall be those who do not become landless but their land holding is rendered to less than 5 Bighas on account of acquisition:
(i) Families who are left with land more than one Biswa and upto 2-10-0 Bighas one time grant of = Rs. 40,000/-.
(ii) Families who are left with more than 2-10-0 Bighas but less than 5 Bighas one time grant of = Rs. 35,000/-.
The Deputy Commissioner concerned will be the sanctioning authority for Rehabilitation grant, which shall be provided by the project authorities and placed at the disposal of the concerned Deputy Commissioner, for disbursement to eligible families. All these grants shall be in addition to the compensation paid under Land Acquisition Act.”
9. The plai
It is worth-noticing that plaintiff was awarded compensation amount for acquisition of property, which was owned and possessed by her. As per Clause 1.2 of the R&R Scheme, term “oustee” has been defi....
The main legal principle established is that single adult members falling within the definition of separate family under Section 3(m) of the Act 2013 are entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the PESA Act, Forest Rights Act, and RTFCATILA, RAR Act, 2013 were not applicable to the petitioners' case, and the Orissa Rehabilitation and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the appellant-corporation to provide suitable employment to the oustees in accordance with the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Sc....
The court emphasized that individuals who construct homes on acquired land qualify as displaced families under the Odisha R&R Policy, reinforcing an expansive interpretation in favor of providing emp....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.