HP High Court Dismisses Petitions Seeking Land Allotment for Families Affected by Nathpa Jhakri Project
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed petitions filed by families seeking land allotment under the rehabilitation scheme linked to SJVNL’s Nathpa Jhakri hydroelectric project. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that the petitioners’ claims relied entirely on a resurvey that had no legal standing and was never approved by the state government.
The petitioners argued that their land and houses were acquired in 1990–91 for the project and that, under the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme, they were entitled to plots. They claimed that although their names were initially not included in the list of affected families, a resurvey conducted in 2014–15 added their names and even issued certificates. They also alleged discrimination, stating that others in similar situations were allotted plots while they were denied the benefit.
SJVNL, however, stated that the petitioners’ families were never identified or certified as landless project-affected families. The corporation rejected the 2014–15 resurvey, asserting that it had no involvement in it, nor was the resurvey ever approved or finalized by the government. The corporation further argued that the petitioners had already received fair compensation for the acquired land and continued to own more than 5 bighas of land, disqualifying them from the definition of “landless” or “houseless” families under the scheme.
The state government supported SJVNL’s stand, clarifying that under paragraph 3.9 of the rehabilitation scheme, only those families whose remaining agricultural land was less than 5 bighas could be considered landless. It confirmed that the petitioners did not fit this definition. It also acknowledged the resurvey but said it was neither conducted as per policy guidelines nor approved by the government.
After reviewing all submissions, the court concluded that the petitioners had received proper compensation and had never challenged their exclusion from the affected families’ list for many years. Since their entire case was based on an unauthorized and disputed resurvey, the High Court dismissed all petitions.
3 Comments