Holding

The corporation’s liability under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme ends after benefits are granted to the first member of a joint family, and no further benefits are payable to other members of the same family.

Summary

The appellant corporation acquired agricultural land jointly held by a family for a hydro‑electric project under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and formulated a Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme for land‑less families. One brother obtained a land‑less certificate and was granted all benefits under the scheme, including land, house and employment for his wife. The other two brothers later applied for the same benefits but were denied on the ground that only one member of a land‑less family could receive them. The High Court set aside the denial, holding that the brothers lived separately and therefore constituted a different family. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the scheme is applicable to each family defined by joint holding in the revenue records, and that the fact of separate residence is irrelevant; once benefits are given to the first member of the joint family, the corporation has no further obligation. The Court also observed that any dispute among family members over the share of benefits is a private matter to be litigated by them. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the High Court judgments were set aside.

Issues considered

Whether members of a joint family, other than the first applicant, are entitled to benefits under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme.
How the term ‘family’ is to be interpreted for the purpose of the scheme and Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether separate residence of a family member affects his status as part of the land‑less family.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4
Partition Act, 1893s. 4

Subjects

land acquisitionresettlement and rehabilitationjoint familylandless familyhydroelectric projectSection 4family definitionSupreme Court

Judgment

A SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. AND ANR.
V.

DILA RAM AND ORS.

JANUARY 5, 2005

B [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

S.4-Agricultural land jointly held by members of a family-Acquired
C for a Hydro-electric Project-Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme for
displaced '/andlessfamily'-One of the three brothers jointly holding the land
applied for and was granted benefits provided under the Scheme-Later, other
two brothers also applying for the benefits pleading that they were living
separately-Held, land being held jointly by all the members of the family, the
b person who first applied having been given the benefits as per the Scheme,
Corporation was not obliged to provide any more benefits to any other member
of the family even if living separately.

Certain agricultural lands held by members of a family as joint
holders, were acquired under s.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for
E the purpose of a Hydro-electric Project. The family consisted of several
members including three brothers. One of the brothers obtained "landless
certificate" and applied for benefits under the Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Scheme. The appellant-Corporation granted to the
applicant all the benefits under the Scheme including the benefit of
F employment to his wife. Later, the remaining two brothers also applied
for the benefits under the Rehabilitation Scheme. Their claims were
)(
rejected on the ground that only one member of the 'landless family' could
be given the benefits under the Scheme. However, the High Court allowed
their writ petitions holding that they were entitled to the benefits under
the Scheme as they were living separately.
G
In the appeals filed by the Corporation, it was contended for the
appellant that once the benefits were made available to one member of
the family which was jointly holding the land acquired, no further benefits
could be given to any other member of the family. For the respondents it
was contended that their brother who got the benefits under the Scheme
H 66
SATLU.J JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. v. DILA RAM 67

was a step-brother living separately, and they belonged to a different A
family even on the date of notification under s.4 of the Act, and, therefore,
they had to be provided the benefits of the scheme separately.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

1.1. The High Court erred in accepting the contention of the B
respondents that their brother residing separately could not be treated as
a part of the family and his holding had to be reckoned as if it was a
holding of a separate family. The scheme is made applicable to "each
family which is rendered landless". The revenue records indicate that the
land was held jointly by all the members of the family. Whether one C
brother was residing separately or not is wholly irrelevant and besides the
issue. The test to be adopted under the Scheme was whether there was
joint holding and relationship as a family. The brother who got the benefits
was a part of the landless family whose land had been acquired.
Consequently; he having been first to apply, was given the benefits under
the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme. There was no further D
obligation on the part of the Corporation to provide any more benefits
thereunder. (71-D-H; 72-A-BI

1.2. As regards the plea of the respondents that their brother who
got the benefits under the Scheme was a step-brother living separately and E
deprived the other mem hers of the family of all the benefits under the
Scheme, this is a matter of dispute inter se within the family with which
the appellant-Corporation is not concerned in any way. It is open to the
other members of the family to take appropriate legal action to seek a
share in the benefits already granted by the Corporation. (72-C-DI
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6218-6219
of 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.1999 of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court in C. W.P. Nos. 385 and 542 of 1998.
G
Mukul Rohtagi and B.K. Satija for the Appellants.

Ashok K. Mahajn for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A SRIKRISHNA, J. 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
B 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.

On 27. I I.I 99 I the appellant corporation formulated a scheme for
C resettlement and rehabilitation of persons whose land had been acquired.
This was intended as an additional measure of relief for the persons l;Vhose
land had been taken away. The scheme adopted by the Board of Directors of
Corporation is in the following terms:

"The Board discussed at length and approved the plan for Resettlement
D and Rehabilitation of persons being displaced due to construction of
NJPC at indicated below:
(a) To allot developed agricultural land, to each family, who is
rendered landless, equivalent to the area acquired or 5 bighas,
.,
whichever is less. This 5 bighas would include any land left with
E the family after acquisition. This would be done only after the
certificate of his having become landless is submitted duly signed
by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampur.
(b) To provide a house with a building up plinth area of 45 sqm. to
each landless family whose house is acquired alternatively to
F pay Rs. 45,000 to each landless family, whose house is acquired,
and constructs his house at his own cost, with a plinth area of 45
sqm. or more. In case of such persons constructs less than 45
sqm. plinth area, then the amount to be given will be worked out
in direct proportion to the area of house constructed vis-a-vis Rs.
45,000 as the cost of 45 sqm.plith area.
G
(c) To provide water supply, electricity, street light and approach
paths in the rehabilitation colonies at project cost.
(d) To provide transportation at project cost for physical mobilization
of all the displaced families, as soon as the houses-get constructed
H premises/shops allotted to any oustee on preferential basis shall
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. v. DILA RAM [SRIKRISHNA, J.]69

be utilized by the oustee for his bonafide use only. A
(e) To provide suitable employment to one members of each displaced
family according to his capability and qualifications subject to
availability of vacancies. However, persons who are allotted shops
would not be eligible for benefit of employment and vice-versa.
(t) To incur the estimated expenditure of Rs.184 lacs on rehabilitation B
(Annexure VIII of the Rehabilitation Plan) against an ad hoc
provision of Rs.18 lacs in Detailed Prcjeci Report (September,
1986 price level)."

During 27.2.1991 to 4.7.91 the appellant acquired about 28 bighas of
land which belonged to the family of the respondents for the purpose of the C
project. The said land was held jointly by the family of the respondents
which consisted of the following :

BALA RAM
Sarani Ram Joban Das D
(Son) (Son)
Hari (Wife)
Durga Singh Leela Devi Dila Ram Sunder Singh Tikam Devi Chitra Devi
(Son) (Daughter) (Respondent) (Respondent) (daughter) (daughter)
Son Son
E
Dila Ram and Sunder Singh, the respondents in these appeals, are the
sons of Joban Dass, while Durga Singh is the son of Sarni Ram. Sarni Ram
and Johan Das are brothers and their father was Bala Ram. Both Sarni Ram
and Johan Dass were married to the same wife, Hari. The revenue record
showed the names of all the merr.bers of the family as joint holders holding F
shares. It also showed that the land was held for self cultivation by Sunder
Singh, Dila Ram Chitra Devi etc., co-sharers. This was the situation of the
holding as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act.

Durga Singh obtained "landless certificate" from the Sub-Divisional G
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 SOM Rampur H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) I S.C.R.

A 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
B 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.

The respondents filed two writ petitions before the High Court praying
for writs of Mandamus to direct the appellant to make available the benefits
C of the Rehabilitation Scheme to the two respondents Dila Ram and Sunder
Singh.

On 5.12.1998 the Board of Directors of the appellant Corporation passed
a further resolution, which put the matters beyond cavil. This resolution
defines 'landless family' as under:
D
"Landless family means and includes all members of the family of
the individual, joint holders co-sharers whose name(s) appeared in
one revenue account as on the date of issuance of notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and whose agricultural
land is acquired for Nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric Project making them
E completely landless or their balance agricultural land left after
acquisition is less than 5 bigha. For this purpose agricultural land
held anywhere by the all such persons and their family members shall
be recokonedand and members of the family shall include his spouse
(s) parents, sons, daughters, step sons and step daughters. If more
than one family is entered as joint holders in land revenue record all
F of them shall be treated as one landless PAF (Project Affected Family).
Person loosing land on acquisition of building and land appurtenant
thereto shall not be treated as landless PAF. The landless PAF shall
be certified by SDM, Rampur."

G The High Court allowed the writ petitions by taking the view that the
benefits under the resettlement and rehabilitation plan had to be given to the
present respondents as they were living separately from the family, and granted
the reliefs sought.

Hence, these appeals.
H
SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. v. DILA RAM [SRI KRISHNA, J.]7]

...,_ The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the details of the A
' resettlement and rehabilitation scheme dated 27.11.91 as amended by the
Resolution dated 5.11.1998 and submitted that the corporation had discharged
its obligations under the resettlement and rehabilitation scheme way back in
1996 when Durga Singh, admittedly a member of the family, had applied for
and had been granted the benefits thereunder. He contended that once such B
benefits were made available to one member of the family which was jointly
holding the land acquired, there was no further obligation to give such benefits
to any other member of the family.

The learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings of the
High Court and urged that, as evidenced by the Panchayat Pariwar register, C
Durga Singh was residing separately for the last 11 years and, therefore, was
in a separate family. Consequently, he urged that the respondents belonged
to a different family even on the date of notification under Section 4 of the
Act, and therefore, the benefit of the scheme had to be provided separately
to the respondents.
D
In our view, the High Court erred in accepting the contention of the
respondents that since Durga Singh was residing separately for the last 11
l< years he could not be treated as a part of the family and his holding had to
be reckoned as if it was a holding of a separate family. The High Court relied
on some judgments referred with reference to the concept of family under E
Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893. In our view, it was wholly unnecessary
to refer to the statutory definition of family given under the Partition Act. As
far as the benefit under the scheme is concerned, the only question which the
High Court had to determine was whether the respondents were eligible to
any benefits in terms of the scheme. The scheme is made applicable to "each
family which is rendered landless". The revenue records indicate that the F
land was held jointly by Sunder Singh, Dila Ram and other members of the
family. Whether Durga Singh was residing separately or not is wholly irrelevant
and besides the issue. The test to be adopted under the scheme was whether
there was joint holding and relationship as a family. The High Court seems
to have understood that the scheme was intended to give benefits to each G
member of the landless family. If this interpretation were to be accepted, then
the corporation would have to provide more land for distribution to each
member of the landless family than, perhaps, even the total land acquired. In
the instant case, the corporation would have to provide 35 bighas of land, 7
houses and employment to 7 members of the family, for acquiring. only 28
bighas of land and one house. The High Court seems to have fallen into an H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] I S.C.R.

A error in adopting the meaning of 'family' from judgments, which were rendered
in relation to Section 4 of the Partition Act and under the Rent Control Acts.

The scheme emphasizes joint holding and family relationship. As long
as these existed, the fact that any particular person was residing separately,
is of no consequence. Adjudged by this test, Durga Singh was a part of the
B landless family whose land has been acquired. Consequently, he having been
first to apply, was given the benefit under the resettlement and rehabilitation
scheme. There was no further obligation on the part of the corporation to
provide any more benefits thereunder.

C The learned counsel for the Respondents contended that, Durga Singh
being a step brother, he had taken all the benefits under the resettlement and
rehabilitation scheme and deprived the other members of the family. That is
a matter of dispute inter se within the family with which the appellant
corporation is not concerned in any way, nor could the High Court grant any
relief based thereupon. It is open to the other members of the family to take
D appropriate legal action as they may be advised to seek a share in the benefits
of the resettlement and rehabilitation scheme which were made available by
the appellant to Durga Singh.

In the result, we find that the appellant is entitled to succeed. The
E appeals are hereby allowed and the impugned judgments of the High Court
are set aside, but without costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.

>-