Entry in Panchayat Parivar Register is a Prerequisite for Oustee Benefits, Strategic Land Purchase Doesn't Qualify: Himachal Pradesh HC - 2025-09-03

Strategic Land Purchase Fails to Secure Oustee Benefits, HP High Court Upholds Residency Rule

Shimla, HP – The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has dismissed a writ petition seeking benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Scheme for the Koldam Hydroelectric Project, ruling that the petitioner was not eligible as he was not a resident of the affected area and had failed to meet a crucial prerequisite. The court, presided over by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, underscored that such schemes are intended for genuine residents displaced by projects, not for those who make strategic land purchases in anticipation of acquisition.

Case Background

The case, Nathu vs National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) , was brought by the petitioner, Nathu, who claimed he was denied an "oustee certificate" and the corresponding benefits under the R&R scheme. His two biswas of land in village Aahan were acquired in 2000 for the Koldam project. While he received monetary compensation for the land, he contended that he was unfairly denied the additional rehabilitation benefits. The petitioner had approached the authorities in 2016, sixteen years after the acquisition, and his claim was rejected, leading him to file the present writ petition.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Stance: The petitioner argued that the acquisition of his land entitled him to the benefits of the R&R Scheme (Annexure P-2) and that the competent authority had wrongly rejected his claim in 2016.

Respondent's (NTPC) Stance: The NTPC vehemently opposed the petition, labeling it an "abuse of the process of law." Their counsel argued that the petitioner was a resident of a different village (Binga, Tehsil Sarkaghat) and had strategically purchased a small parcel of land (two biswas) in village Aahan, knowing it would be acquired for the project.

The respondent highlighted two critical points: 1. Eligibility Criteria: As per Clause 2.2.3 of the R&R scheme, benefits are for individuals who are rendered landless or houseless. The petitioner did not fall into either category. 2. Residency Requirement: A crucial condition for eligibility was being registered in the Panchayat Parivar Register of the affected village as of the date of the land acquisition notification (under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884). The petitioner's name was not on this register, as he was not a resident.

Court’s Rationale and Key Observations

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, after a careful review of the pleadings and documents, found no merit in the petition. The court's reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the R&R scheme's purpose and eligibility criteria.

"The policy obviously was for the benefit of those, who were permanently residing in the area and who were to be rendered houseless and landless on account of acquisition proceedings," the court observed.

The judgment emphasized that the petitioner's failure to be listed in the Panchayat Parivar Register of village Aahan was a fatal flaw in his claim. This requirement was explicitly defined in the agreement between NTPC and the State of H.P., which defined a "Family" eligible for benefits based on entries in the said register.

The court noted:

"...one fact which is evident and which could not be denied by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as on the date when the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2000, his name was not registered in the Panchayat Parivar Register of the village concerned, which is a pre-condition for the purpose of getting the benefit of the Scheme..."

Furthermore, the court took a dim view of the 16-year delay in raising the issue, stating that "there is no explanation that has come forth from the learned Counsel as to why the petitioner raked up the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement after 16 years."

Final Decision

Concluding that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria laid down in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, the High Court found no infirmity in the authorities' decision to reject his claim. The writ petition was consequently dismissed. This judgment reinforces the principle that rehabilitation benefits are tied to genuine displacement and residency, and cannot be claimed through speculative or strategic actions.