AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
In question is the judgment dated 18.11.2016 passed in CWP No.4810 of 2009, whereby learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 & 2 and directed the appellants to release the benefits to respondents No.1 & 2 in terms of the Rehabilitation & Resettlement Scheme of Chamera Hydroelectric Stage-II in lieu of acquisition of their land for the said project.
Facts:-
2(i). Respondents No.1 and 2 were the writ petitioners. The appellants acquired the land owned and possessed by respondent No.2 in Village Thadi, District Chamba alongwith his house for construction of Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-I. Respondent No.2 was paid due compensation for the acquired land. In accordance with the provisions of Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme (in short ‘R&R Scheme’) for Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage -I, respondent No.2 was also provided employment in the said project, i.e. Chamera Hydroelectric Project, Stage-I.
2(ii). The appellants acquired additional land of respondent No.2, measuring 0-1-15 bighas in Mohal Gurad, District Chamba alongwith his house. The acquisition was for reservoir of Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-II. Respondent No.2 was paid compensation in lieu of this additional acquisition as well. Name of respondent No.1, who is son of respondent No.2, was sponsored by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba on 27.07.2004 for employment in Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-II in lieu of acquisition of the aforesaid land measuring 0-1-15 bighas owned and possessed by his father, i.e. respondent No.2. The appellants, however, declined to grant employment assistance to respondent No.1. Consequently, respondents No.1 and 2 instituted the writ petition, being CWP No.4810 of 2009, seeking quashing of the decisions of the appellants, denying the employment and other benefits admissible to them for acquisition of land owned by respondent No.2 for construction of Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-II.
2(iii). The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 18.11.2016. The impugned decisions/ communications of different dates were quashed and set aside. The appellants were directed to confer upon respondents No.1 and 2 (writ petitioners) all benefits including employment accruing to them under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme framed by the State Government for the benefits of oustees/affected families of Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-II.
2(iv). Feeling aggrieved, the beneficiary of the acquisition process, i.e. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited has instituted this letters patent appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants has raised following two points:-
3(i). Respondent No.1 was not resident of Village Gurad. Panchayat record showing him to be residing in Village Gurad was fake.
3(ii). Respondent No.1’s father had already been provided employment under the R&R Scheme of Chamera HEP Stage-I, therefore, he could not be granted the benefits (employment) under the R&R Scheme of Chamera HEP Stage-II.
Appellants contend that for the aforesaid reasons, benefits of R&R Scheme of Chamera HEP Stage-II could not be granted in favour of respondent No.1.
Consideration:-
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case record. Our observations are as under:-
4(i). Point No.1:-
Learned counsel for the appellants invited attention to Clause (viii) of para-III of the R&R Scheme for Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-II, which reads as under:-
“(viii) No person shall be eligible for employment in the Project, who is not entered as member of the concerned affected family in the Panchayat Parivar Register.”
It was contended that the entry existing in the Panchayat Parivar Register, reflecting respondent No.1 S/o respondent No.2 as member of respondent No.2’s family and resident of Village Gurad, was fake; Respondent No.2 had not been living in Village Gurad, therefore, he could not have been taken to be the member of the family of his father, i.e. respondent No.2, and resident of Village Gurad.
We are afraid the above argument is not even available to the appellants. Admittedly, there exists an entry in the Panchayat Priwar Register in favour of respondent No.1, being son of respondent No.2 and residing with his family in Village Gurad. The appellants have admittedly not laid any challenge to the entry. It is not for the appellants to decide on their own that the entry existing in the Panchayat Parivar Register is fake and is not to be acted upon. Name of respondent No.1 is recorded in the concerned Panchayat Parivar Register. He, therefore, does not suffer from disqualification for availing the benefits of the R&R Scheme of Chamera HEP Stage-II. The appellants have not even demonstrated as to how the entry of respondent No.1 in the Panchayat Parivar Register as member of the family of respondent No.2 can be said to be fake.
4(ii). Point No.2:-
The second contention urged for the appellants is that father of respondent No.1 had already been provided employment under R&R Scheme of Chamera HEP Stage-I, hence, respondent No.1 was not to be provided employment under R&R Scheme of Chamera HEP Stage-II. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants invited attention to judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2005) 2 SCC 122 (Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and another Versus Dila Ram and others).
The decision in SJVNL’s case, supra, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, a scheme was formulated by the Corporation for resettlement and rehabilitation of persons whose land had been acquired. In terms thereof, the Corporation acquired the land and gave the benefit in lieu thereof to one of the joint holders of the land. Subsequently, the other co-owners of the land also claimed the said benefit. Their claim was rejected on the ground that only one member of the landless family could be given the benefits under the scheme. The High Court held that the joint holder upon whom the benefit was conferred earlier had been residing separately for many years and as such, he could not be treated as part of the family. His holding had to be reckoned as if it was holding of a separate family. The Apex Court held that such an approach was not proper; The test to be adopted under the scheme was whether there was joint holding and relationship as a family. The fact that any particular person was residing separately was of no consequence. It was held that after giving the benefit of the scheme to one of the joint holder of the land, there was no further obligation on the part of the Corporation to provide any further benefits thereunder.
In the instant case, the factual scenario is different. The appellants had acquired two separate parcels of land owned by respondent No.2 for two separate projects having two separate R&R Schemes. The first parcel was acquired for construction of Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage -I. In lieu thereof, respondent No.2 was provided employment by the appellants under the R&R Scheme of Chamera HEP Stage-I. For construction of Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-II, additional land owned and possessed by respondent No.2 was acquired by the appellants. In lieu thereof, respondent No.2 sought employment of his son, i.e. respondent No.1. There is no embargo in the R&R Scheme of Chamera HEP Stage-II that in case of families, whose land is acquired for Chamera Stage-II HEP and in lieu whereof, whose one member has already been granted employment in Chamera HEP Stage-I, no member of that family shall be entitled for benefits including employment under the R&R Scheme for Chamera Hydroelectric Project Stage-II. Chamera Stage-I HEP and Chamera HEP Stage-II are two separate hydroelectric power projects having separate R&R schemes. Employment for acquisition of land for Chamera Stage-I HEP does not create any bar for employment of member of the same family in lieu of additional acquisition of its land for Chamera Stage-II HEP. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any such condition in the R&R Scheme.
No other point was urged.
In view of the above discussion, we find no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the instant appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.