SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. AND ANR. versus DILA RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 66 · Decided: 05-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 
H 
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 
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 
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. 
Mukul Rohtagi and B.K. Satija for the Appellants. 
Ashok K. Mahajn for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.