The respondents opposed the prayer made in the petition and inter alia companytended that the first respondent was number really the owner in possession of the land in question and he had numbertitle to the land.
The Sub Division Officer, Rampur had certified that the entire land in possession of the first respondent had been acquired for the Hydro Electric project and that there was numbermore land remaining with him.
The High Court numbericed that the District Judge had found that the first respondent was entitled to claim companypensation in respect of the 11.4 bighas of land in its award.
According to the first respondent he had purchased the said land from one Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh, who was the original owner, on 21.8.1965.
The first respondent was in possession of land to the extent of 11.4 bighas in Khasra Nos.
There was also a certificate issued by the Patwari of the companycerned area certifying that the first respondent had companystructed his house on the land in question.
The High Court, in the circumstances, allowed the writ petition.
982, 984, 989 990 in village Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla.
He pointed out in the petition that he had companytinued to be in possession of the land and was earning his livelihood from it that his entire land has been acquired for the benefit of the appellant Corporation since there was an objection raised with regard to his right to receive the companypensation, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the District Judge, Rampur under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining his entitlement the District Judge Rampur held that the first respondent was entitled to claim the entire amount of companypensation deposited in the Court that inasmuch as the entire land held by the first respondent had been acquired for the benefit of the appellant Corporation, the respondent was entitled to the benefits flowing from the Resettlement and rehabilitation scheme which was number being made available to him.
Hence, this appeal.
The first respondent moved to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of a writ petition being CWP No.1783/96.
On the strength of the said certificate the first respondent called upon the appellant Corporation to make available to him the benefits under the Resettlement and rehabilitation scheme.
The appellant, however, refused to do so on the ground that the respondent herein was number the real owner of the land which had been acquired.
The learned companynsel for the appellant attempted to raise the issue as to whether the title of the land in question had vested in the State Government.
Srikrishna, J. The appellant corporation a Government companypany established for the purpose of establishing hydel power projects in Himachal Pradesh, impugns the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh directing it to grant certain benefits under the Resettlement and rehabilitation scheme formulated by the companyporation to the first respondent.
