Srikrishna, J. - (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: "The Board discussed at length and approved the plan for resettlement 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 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 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. plinth area. 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 premises/shops allotted to any oustee on preferential basis and shall be uti lized by the oustee for his bona fide use only. 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. f) To incur the estimated expenditure of Rs.184 lacs on rehabilitation (Annexure VIII of the Rehabilitation Plan) against an ad hoc provision of Rs.18 lacs in Detailed Project 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 project. The said land was held jointly by the family of the respondents which consisted of the following : JUDGEMENT_40_JT1_2005Html1.htm 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 Joban Das are brothers and their father was Bala Ram. Both Sarni Ram and Joban Dass were married to the same wife, Hari. The revenue record showed the names of all the members of the family as joint holders holding 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,
(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. The respondents filed two writ petitions before the High Court praying for writs of mandamus to direct the appellant to make available the benefits of the Rehabilitation Scheme to the two respondents Dila Ram and Sunder Singh.;