Introduction:

The case Nathu v. National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) & Others (CWP No. 1482 of 2019, decided on 27.08.2025) came before the Himachal Pradesh High Court with the petitioner seeking relief under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme framed under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, approached the High Court after the authorities rejected his representation in 2016 for issuance of an oustee certificate, which would have entitled him to the benefits of the Scheme. The petitioner claimed that the land he owned, comprising two biswas, was acquired for a NTPC project, and he was entitled to rehabilitation assistance since the acquisition rendered him landless and eligible for compensation. The respondents included NTPC, represented by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, and the State, represented by Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. The dispute revolved around whether the petitioner qualified as a family residing in the project area at the time of land acquisition under the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the State’s Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel presided over the matter and examined whether the petitioner’s absence from the Panchayat Parivar Register on the date of acquisition disqualified him from claiming benefits under the Scheme.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that he had lawfully purchased two biswas of land within the project area and, therefore, was entitled to the benefits of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme. He argued that the acquisition of his land had rendered him effectively landless and deprived him of basic livelihood, which, according to the Scheme, was the primary criterion for being classified as an oustee. Counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the statutory provisions did not explicitly bar individuals from claiming benefits if they were not originally listed in the Parivar Register, and that the essence of the Scheme was to prevent hardship caused by acquisition, which applied to the petitioner. The petitioner further contended that a strict reading of the preconditions would result in injustice, particularly for individuals who had legally acquired property within the project area but were inadvertently not included in local family records. He submitted that the authorities’ rejection of his claim after a delay of several years was arbitrary and contrary to the purpose of the R&R Scheme, which was to ensure rehabilitation and prevent social displacement of affected families. The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court for issuance of an oustee certificate, allowing him to avail benefits under the Scheme, including financial assistance, resettlement provisions, and other statutory entitlements arising from land acquisition.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The respondents, NTPC and the State, argued that the petitioner was not eligible for rehabilitation benefits as his name and the names of his family members were absent from the Panchayat Parivar Register at the relevant time. NTPC contended that the petitioner was a resident of a different village and had deliberately purchased land in the project area after the project had been notified, indicating that he did not belong to the category of permanently residing families for whom the Scheme was designed. The respondents further argued that the petitioner had approached the authorities with undue delay of sixteen years, undermining his claim to benefits. They emphasized that the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme specifically required that the oustees must have been residing in the project area prior to acquisition and must have been recorded in the official family registers maintained by the Panchayat. The respondents submitted that the Scheme, in Clause 2.2.3, explicitly provides that only families registered in the Parivar Register on the date of acquisition would be entitled to benefits. NTPC contended that allowing the petitioner to avail benefits without registration would set a dangerous precedent, leading to arbitrary claims by landowners who were not affected in the intended statutory sense, thereby diluting the purpose of the Scheme. The State reinforced that the definition of “family” under the Scheme was clearly limited to husband, wife, children, and siblings living jointly as per the Panchayat Parivar Register at the date of the Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, after examining the submissions of both sides, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme. The court observed that the petitioner’s name and the names of his family members were not recorded in the Panchayat Parivar Register at the time of land acquisition in 2000, which was a statutory precondition for availing the benefits of the Scheme. The court noted: “One fact which is evident… is that as on the date when the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2000, his name was not registered in the Panchayat Parivar Register of the village concerned, which is a pre-condition for the purpose of getting the benefit of the Scheme in terms of Clause 2.2.3 of the same.” The court emphasized that the petitioner had approached the authorities after a delay of sixteen years, and there was no evidence to suggest that he was rendered landless or homeless as intended under the R&R Scheme. Additionally, the court found merit in the respondents’ submission that the petitioner was resident of another village and had acquired land in the project area without qualifying under the statutory conditions for rehabilitation. Justice Goel reiterated the statutory definition of “family” as confined to the husband, wife, children, and brothers or sisters living jointly, recorded in the Parivar Register at the time of acquisition. As such, the petitioner failed to satisfy the legal requirements and could not be treated as an oustee for purposes of the Scheme. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the legal requirement that benefits under the R&R Scheme are available only to families with official registration in the Panchayat’s Parivar Register during the time of acquisition, thereby preventing post facto claims by individuals who did not satisfy the statutory criteria.