NATHI SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE, REHABILITATION TEHRI DAM PROJECT/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TEHRI GARHWAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:

(3.) It is the further case of the appellant that the appellant and the predecessors were having possession over the aforesaid piece of land. In regard to Khata No. 71, no notice was issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and it is alleged that, as no notice was issued, they made inquiry and they came to know about the entries in the mutation, which were due to a clerical mistake. It is further averred that land in Khata No. 71 was not taken into consideration for determining the eligibility of the appellant and the authorities proceeded on the basis that the land acquired is less than 50% of the total holdings of the appellant and he has not acquired the status of project affected families. At this juncture, we must refer to the policy, which has been enunciated, called as the rehabilitation policy. The rehabilitation policy is produced to show that under the same, when more than 50% of a persons holding is acquired, he becomes entitled not only to the monetary compensation, but he is also entitled to be rehabilitated by providing him with land. If the land in Khata No. 71 is also treated as belonging to the father of the appellant, then the total land, according to the appellant, would be more than 50% and then, he would become rehabilitated oustee under the rehabilitation policy. It is the case of the appellant that, on realizing the mistake, an application was preferred before the Tehsildar on 22.09.2003 and the mutation was corrected and khatauni for the Fasli Year 1406-1411 is produced as Annexure -6. Annexure-5 is the order passed on the application. It is further alleged that an application was given to Special Land Acquisition Officer, as he has to determine the compensation. Annexure-7 purports to be the compensation certificate. Annexure-8 purports to be the report of the Patwari submitted before the Naib Tehsildar and the Officer In-charge of the Rehabilitation, wherein it is stated that due to clerical mistake, the name of the predecessors in interest of the appellant could not be recorded and the same was not considered. Annexure-9 purports to be total list of lands produced to show that, reckoning the land in Khata No. 71, the percentage of land acquired from the appellant's branch would be 55.20. On the said basis, complaint was lodged before the Grievance Redressal Cell constituted as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said body proceeded to consider the claim, noting, inter alia, that the name of the predecessor in interest of the appellant was not included in their records as on 12.07.2002, which is the date on which the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and taking into consideration all the other lands, which were acquired from the branch of the appellant and the other branches namely, the other three sons other than sons of Sunder Singh, the applications filed by appellant's father and also the other members representing other two branches, was rejected. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition finding no merit in the claim for rehabilitation, but ordered as follows: