The crucial date for determining rights under the Rehabilitation Policy is the date of the Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, and the court's function in certiorari jurisdiction is supervisory in nature.

K.M. Joseph, J.

Appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition seeking to quash order dated 01.03.2011 passed by the Grievance Redressal Cell, Tehri Dam Project (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no. 2’), whereby the claim of the petitioner for compensation, in accordance with his entitlement as per the Rehabilitation Policy was allegedly rejected. A direction was sought to the respondent-authorities to grant all permissible rehabilitation benefits to the appellant.

2. Very briefly put, the case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was as follows:

Appellant is a permanent resident of village Kumrada in District Uttarkashi. The grandfather of the appellant was one Chota; he had four sons, namely, Khantu, Gobru, Sundar Singh and Bharat Singh. Appellant is the son of Gobru; Sunder Singh had two sons, namely, Dheer Singh and Prem Singh. Bharat Singh had two grand sons, namely, Pratap Singh and Asad Singh. We think it sufficient to refer to the family tree as above, as it is sufficient to resolve the controversy, which is raised before us. The further allegations are that the predecessor in interest of the appellant was recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights in two villages of Patti Dichli, namely, Kumrada and Badhan Gaon of District Uttarkashi. In village Kumrada, it is alleged that the name of the predecessor in interest of the appellant was recorded in Khata no. 24, 40, 71 and 8. In village Badhan Gaon, the name of the predecessor in interest of the appellant was recorded in Khata no. 18 of the revenue records. The land in question, namely, Khata no. 24, 40, 71, 8 and 18, as aforesaid, was acquired for the purpose of the construction of the Tehri Dam. As regards Khata No. 71 in village Kumrada, the case of the appellant is that the land measuring 32 nali and 15 muthi recorded in Khata No. 71 was acquired for the purpose of the construction of Tehri Dam. The dispute, which arose, according to the appellant, is best put in the following pleadings in paragraph 8, 9, 10 & 11, which reads as under:

“8. That the entire dispute arose for the reason that during the Fasli Year 1377 to 1382 after the death of Chota S/o Jaimal the name of Khantu, Gobru, Sundru and Bharatu who were the sons of Chota had been recorded on the basis of succession vide order dated 21.05.1976. True copy of the khatauni of Fasli year 1377 to 1382 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

9. That, however, further in next Fasli year so prepared for the year 1387 to 1392 the name of Dheer Singh and Prem Singh sons of Sundru had been record as legal heirs of Chota S/o Jaimal vide order dated 10.06.1984 in Khata No. 71. True copy of the khatauni of Fasli year 1387-1392 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition.

10. That it is most respectfully submitted that once the order of mutation had been made in Fasli Year 1377 to 1382 vide order dated 21.5.1976, it was incumbent upon the concerned revenue authority to record the name of all the sons of Chota in the next khatauni so prepared and inaction and omission on the part of revenue authorities had continued till the year 1984 and due to the clerical mistake only the name of Dheer Singh and Prem Singh sons of Sundar Singh has been recorded in revenue records and other legal heirs of Chota had been left out. Since wrong mutation entries had been made in the revenue records, the said mistake perpetuated till the next Fasli year of 1400-1405 and this became the root cause of the dispute inasmuch as the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued on 10.7.2002 and for passing the award under Land Acquisition Act, the khatauni of Fasli year 1400-1405 had been considered.

11. That since the authorities involved in the acquisition of land were considering the khatauni of Fasli Year 1400-1405 and the name of present petitioner was not recorded in Khata No. 71 therefore no notice under Section 9 o