SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD Vs. DILA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:

(3.) DURGA Singh obtained "landless certificate" from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the concerned area and applied to the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Officer for benefits under the Rehabilitation scheme. His application was scrutinized and accepted. Consequently, the appellant corporation granted to DURGA Singh all the benefits under the scheme, including the benefit of employment to his wife, in June 1996 itself. On 2.9.1996 the present respondents Dila Ram and Sunder Singh, applied to the SDM Rampur for issuance of "landless certificate" and sought from the appellant-corporation the benefits under the Rehabilitation Scheme. They also issued a legal notice to the appellant in this behalf. Their claims were rejected by the corporation on the ground that only one member of the landless family could be given the benefits under the Scheme. The appellant contends that since the land acquired was a joint holding consisting of 12 members, and one of them had been given the benefit under the scheme, there was no further obligation to make available such benefits to any other member of the landless family.