JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—The above writ petitions have been taken up and heard together as common question of fact and law are involved therein and reliefs sought for by the petitioners are identical and are being disposed of by this common judgment. CWP No. 1783 of 1996. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he was the owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 982, 984, 989 8s 990 measuring 11.4 bighas in village Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, and the said land was purchased from Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh, who was the original owner, thereof. The Patta which was excuted in favour of the petitioner by Sh. S.R. Jhingta, General Power of Attorney of Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh on 21.8.1965. A copy of the sale deed/patta has been filed with the writ petition which is annexed as Annexure PA and its English translation marked as Annexure PA/1. The petitioner stated that the land could not be mutated in his name as the State Government had issued instructions to the Revenue Authorities not to enter or attest the mutation of transfers of the land which was originally owned by Rajkumar Rajinder Singh because cases under H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates Act and Land Reforms Act were pending between Rajkumar Rajinder Singh and the State Government. 3. The petitioner contended that he continued to be in possession of his land and used to earn his livelihood from it. The entire land of the petitioner was acquired for Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation vide its awards dated 27.2.1991 and 4.7.1991 but no compensation at all was paid to the petitioner as the land was not mutated in his name. The Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the District Judge, Shimla under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining as to whom the amount was payable. Rajkumar Rajinder Singh filed his objections through his General Power of Attorney, wherein the claim of the petitioner was conceded. Proceedings under the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 were also pending before the Collector, Rampur and vide his order dated 10.11.1993 in case No. 2 of 1987, the Collector, Rampur held the petitioner to be a bona fide transferee under Section 7 of the Act. Proceedings under the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 were also pending before the Collector, Rampur and vide his order dated 10.11.1993 in case No. 2 of 1987, the Collector, Rampur held the petitioner to be a bona fide transferee under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner alleged that he was thus entitled to receive the entire compensation for the acquired land as he was held to be an owner of the same by the competent authority. The District Judge, Rampur also held in his order that the petitioner was entitled to claim the entire amount of compensation which was deposited in the court with respect to the land measuring 11.4 bighas. The petitioner has stated that he is a poor agriculturist and this piece of land was his only source of livelihood. The terms and conditions of the award provided for the Re-habilitation and Re-settlement of the persons of that area who have become landless and houseless as a result of the acquisition proceedings were agreed to between the acquiring authorities the State Government and the persons interested. The award was duly approved by the State Government and these terms and conditions formed part of the award. According to the award, the acquiring department was directed to ensure that no person was rendered landless or left with holding of land less-than 5 bighas. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 2 the Executive Engineer, Environment and Re-habilitation Division, Nathpa Jhakri of the first respondent also formulated a Re-habilitation and Re-settlement Scheme to implement the terms of the award. Copies of the relevant portion of the award and Re-habilitation and Re-settlement Scheme are annexed as Annexures PC & PD to the writ petition. The petitioner said to have applied on 8.2.1994 to the S.D.M. Rampur respondent No.3, who has been appointed as the Re-habilitation and Re-settlement Officer by the State Government. In the said application, the petitioner exercised his option for allotment of land and a constructed house. The petitioner alleged that his case is fully covered under the Scheme and he is entitled to get the benefit of the Scheme like similarly situated persons but despite the petitioners repeated request, no action has been taken on his application. In the said application, the petitioner exercised his option for allotment of land and a constructed house. The petitioner alleged that his case is fully covered under the Scheme and he is entitled to get the benefit of the Scheme like similarly situated persons but despite the petitioners repeated request, no action has been taken on his application. According to the petitioner, the only requirement of the Scheme is that a certificate of having become landless is to be submitted which is duly signed by the SDM, Rampur and the petitioner submitted his application which was supported by the certificate issued by the SDM, Rampur, who after the verification from Tehsildar Rampur and Tehsildar Nirmand had certified that according to the reports submitted by the said authorities, the entire land of the petitioner has been acquired for the N. J.P.C. and now no land stands in his name. The Halqua Patwari has certified that the petitioners house was acquired for the N. J.P.C. and he has become houseless also as a result of the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner has filed on record a copy of the certificate as Annexure-PE issued by the SDM, Rampur and a copy of the certificate issued by the Halqua Patwari as Annexure-PG. The petitioner alleged that the action of the respondents No. 1 and 2 in not alloting 5 bighas of land and a constructed house to him as well as not granting other benefits under the Re-habilitation and Re-settlement Scheme, is highly illegal, unjust, unfair and arbitrary and he is being discriminated against as other people who have been rendered landless and houseless by the acquisition proceedings have been granted all the benefits under the Scheme. On the basis of the above noted premise, the petitioner has sought the relief for directing respondents 1 85 2 to allot 5 bighas of land and a constructed house to him in terms of the award as well as Re-habilitation and Re-settlement Scheme formulated by them and also to accord him all other benefits under the Scheme to which he is entitled to. 4. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their counter raising two preliminary objections, namely, that the writ petition is not maintainable as it involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their counter raising two preliminary objections, namely, that the writ petition is not maintainable as it involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The second objection raised was that the petitioner has failed to prove on record that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute nor any entry in the revenue record has been proved showing the petitioner as owner and the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from Annexure-PA, the alleged sale in favour of the petitioner by late Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh. The respondents have stated that from the orders passed by the apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1186 to 1191 of 1966, decided on 17.9.1969, wherein it has been held that the land of late Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh stood automatically vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 27 of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 and in these circumstances late Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh could not have been entered into an agreement/sale/lease in faovur of the persons like the petitioner after the land which is the subject matter of Annexure-PA having been vested automatically in the State of H.P. w.e.f. 26.1.1955, whereas the present deed has been executed on 21.8.1965. On merits, the respondents have stated that the petitioner was not owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra numbers mentioned in the writ petition situate in Jhakri and the issuance of Annexure-PF as well as award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector are based on suppression of facts before the authorities inasmuch as, late Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh did not bring to the notice of the authorities regarding the decision of the Honble apex Court, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to derive any benefit from the award as well as sale certificate issued by the SDM, Rampur. 5. 5. In his rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has stated that the preliminary objection No. 1 raised by the respondents is not factually correct and there is no disputed question of fact involved in the writ petition for the reason that the facts in issue have already been decided by the learned District Judge, Rampur vide his order dated 23.8.1996 as well as by the Collector Rampur vide his order dated 10.11.1993 in case No. 2/1987. The petitioner has also stated in reply to preliminary objection No. 2 that the fact of the petitioner being an owner in possession of the acquired land has been finally determined by the learned District Judge, Rampur in proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and respondents No. 1 and 2 have no locus standi to raise such false and frivolous objections on behalf of the State of H.P., who was also party to those proceedings. The Collector Rampur has also held the petitioner to be a bonafide transferee under Section 7 of the H.P. Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1972 and it is not open to the respondents 1 and 2 to challenge the ownership of the petitioner qua the acquired land especially when he has been paid compensation for the same under the orders of the learned District Judge, Rampur. It is emphatically denied that his land had vested in the State of H.P. and he is not concerned with the proceedings pending between Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh and the State of H.P. Rest of the averments of respondents 1 and 2 made in their reply have been denied and that of the writ petition are reiterated and re-asserted. 6. We have heard Mr. Vinay Kuthiala learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Advocate General for respondent No. 3. The learned Counsel for the parties have made their submissions based upon their pleadings in the proceedings. 6. We have heard Mr. Vinay Kuthiala learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Advocate General for respondent No. 3. The learned Counsel for the parties have made their submissions based upon their pleadings in the proceedings. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we find that respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any action as contended by the petitioner in this writ petition despite the fact that he moved an application before respondents 1 and 2 and made repeated requests for taking action on his application praying for the allotment of 5 bighas of land and a constructed house to him in accordance with the terms of the award of the Collector and the judgment of the learned District Judge, Rampur dated 23.3.1996, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure PB to the writ petition. In that order in the acquisition proceedings, the District Judge has found the petitioner entitled to claim compensation of 11.4 bighas of land and awarded him compensation for acquisition of his land measuring 11.4 bighas in the award Annexure PC arrived at the time of acquisition of the land of the petitioner. Under objection No. 5, it has been provided that the acquiring department shall ensure that no person is rendered landless and there shall be no such person who will be left with land less-than 5 bighas. Respondent No. 2 Executive Engineer of respondent No. 1-Corporation formulated a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, marked Annexure PD. Under Clause (a) of the said scheme, it has been categorically provided that respondents No. 1 and 2 shall allot developed agricultural land to each family, who is rendered landless, equivalent to the area acquired or 5 bighas, whichever is less and this 5 bighas of land 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 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rampur. Further under Clause (b), it is provided that a house with built up plinth area of 45 sqr mtr. to each landless family, whose house is acquired or 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 15 sqr mtr. or more. Further under Clause (b), it is provided that a house with built up plinth area of 45 sqr mtr. to each landless family, whose house is acquired or 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 15 sqr mtr. or more. In case, any of such person constructs less than 45 sqr mtr. 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 sqr mtr. plinth area. 7. The petitioner has applied to the SDM, Rampur vide application Annexure-PE dated 8.2.1994 requesting the third respondent that his name is in the list of houseless persons and he does not want money to construct his house. He stated that instead he wants a constructed house at the spot where the Government is giving and his name may be included in the list of persons who are being given constructed houses. He has given Khasra numbers of his acquired land and house in that application. On his application the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Rampur vide certificate marked-PF, certified that according to the report of the Tehsildar Rampur and Tehsildar Nirmand, the entire land of the petitioner measuring 0-92-04 hectr. has been acquired for the Nathpa Jhakri Hydro Electric Project, Jhakri and there is no land remaining in his name. A certificate Annexure-PG has been issued by the Patwari, Patwar Circle, Razoli, Tehsil Rampur District, Shimla on 9.2.1996, wherein it is certified that the petitioner had constructed his house on land belonging to Rajinder Singh son of Sh. Padam Singh, denoted by Khasra No. 989 measuring 0.01.47 hectr and the said Khasra number has been acquired for the Nathpa Jhakri project. In the teeth of this overwhelming documentary evidence on record, the petitioner is held to be entitled to the benefits of the award Annexure PC and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Scheme formulated by respondents for allotment of 5 bighas of land and a constructed house to a person(s) whose land was acquired for the purpose of N.J.P.C. and has been rendered landless. The action of respondents 1 & 2 in not taking any decision on his application is unjust, unfair and arbitrary and further the petitioner cannot be discriminated against other persons who have been rendered landless and houseless by the acquisition on their lands and who have been granted all the benefits under the aforesaid award and Scheme by respondents 1 8& 2 on the basis of the certificate issued by respondent No. 3, S.D.M. or SDO (Civil), Rampur. 8. We find that the defence taken by respondents 1 & 2 in their reply-affidavit is not factually and legally sustainable and the respondents are bound by the commitment under the award and Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Scheme formulated by them and they cannot be permitted to back-out from the promise held out in the said scheme and the award. Respondents 1 and 2 are also not entitled to raise the issue that the land allotted to the petitioner by Rajkumar Rajinder Singh stood vested in the State of H.P. as the said controversy was inter se late Rajkumar Rajinder Singh and State of H.P. which has been set at rest by the District Judge vide order dated 23.3.1996, whereunder the petitioner had been found entitled to compensation of 11.4. bighas of land who has been declared bonafide transferee by the Collector who decided the Land Ceiling proceedings. 9. For the reasons and observations above-stated, the writ petition is allowed, directing respondents 1 & 2 to grant the benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the award and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme formulated by them and the decision shall be taken by the respondents within two months from today. CWP No. 385 of 1998. 10. In this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the entire land measuring 0-19-32 hectr. and his residential house were acquired by respondents in 1991 for the construction of Residential Colony for the employees of the Project. The petitioner being a poor agriculturist, this piece of land was his only source of livelihood and he has been left with only land measuring 0-19 biswas in Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu after the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner applied to the SDM, Rampur who had been appointed as Rehabilitation and Resettlement Officer by the State Government on 8.2.1994 to issue a land-less certificate to the person(s) whose lands were acquired for the construction of the Project. The petitioner applied to the SDM, Rampur who had been appointed as Rehabilitation and Resettlement Officer by the State Government on 8.2.1994 to issue a land-less certificate to the person(s) whose lands were acquired for the construction of the Project. On verification of the claim of the petitioner, the SDM, Rampur issued a landless certificate in favour of the petitioner, a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure PC and the said certificate was sent to respondent No. 2 by the SDO (C)-cum-Relief and Rehabilitation Officer, Rampur vide letter dated 2.9.1996 (Annexure PG) for taking necessary action. The petitioner alleged that despite the requirement of the Scheme being fulfilled by him, the respondents did not take any action on his application and that he had made several representations both oral as well as in writing to the respondents but they paid scant heed to the same and the petitioner left with no other remedy except to serve a legal notice on the respondents through his counsel on 14.10.1996, a copy of which is placed on record and marked Annexure PE. In reply to his legal notice, respondent No. 2 stated vide his letter dated 8.11.1996 marked Annexure PF that the case of the petitioner had already been sent to the higher authorities for taking necessary action and the petitioner would be informed about the decision on the matter. The petitioner contended that the respondents have failed to take any steps in the matter and illegally delayed granting of benefits to him on one pretext or the other. The petitioner again requested the SDM, Rampur to recommend his case vide letter dated 27.12.1997 and the SDM, Rampur again asked the respondents to look into the matter. A copy of the letter is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure PG. 11. The petitioner also alleged that he was repeatedly assured by the respondents that he would be granted benefits after the decision was received from the higher authorities but subsequently the petitioner was orally told in January 1998 that he would not be granted the benefits as his step-brother one Shri Durga Singh had been granted all benefits under the scheme. The petitioner informed the respondents that Sh. Durga Singh son of Sh. The petitioner informed the respondents that Sh. Durga Singh son of Sh. Sarni had never been a member of his family as he was the off spring of a different father and had been living separately from his birth. The petitioner has filed a copy of the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura, marked Annexure PH, which was handed over to the respondents by the petitioner. The petitioner has also handed-over a copy of the mutation register to the respondents wherein the name of Durga Singh was entered as a legal heir of his father and the petitioner did not inherit any property from his step-father. The petitioner also informed the respondents that he had been living separately even from his real brother Sunder Singh since 1985 and this fact was recorded as such in the Parivar Register of the Panchayat, a copy of which was handed over to the respondents and true copy of the same is placed on record and marked Annexure-PI. The grievance of the petitioner is that the officials of the respondents thereafter orally informed him that he could not be granted benefits under the Scheme since he was a co-owner of the land and other co-owners had already been granted benefits. The petitioner stated that most of the land at village Jhakri is jointly owned by several persons, who have a common Khata though they may not be even remotely related to each other. Though the ownership of the land was shown to be joint in the revenue record, individual co-owners were in possession of their own land independently to the exclusion of the other co-owners and were cultivating the same and furthermore, the co-owners were all living separately and could never be said to be members of each other families. Though the ownership of the land was shown to be joint in the revenue record, individual co-owners were in possession of their own land independently to the exclusion of the other co-owners and were cultivating the same and furthermore, the co-owners were all living separately and could never be said to be members of each other families. The petitioner stated that once the certificate was issued by the SDM, Rampur certifying the petitioner having become landless, it is not open to the respondents to find ways and means to scuttle the legitimate claim of the petitioner and the respondents have already been granted benefits to a number of other persons who were co-owners of the land but who were living separately and therefore, the respondents are dicriminating against the petitioner in giving benefits of the Scheme to him and in this manner denial of the benefits to the petitioner by the respondents is highly arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to alltoment of land as well as a built up house and a job in the Project. On these premise, the present writ petition has been filed for claiming the relief as noticed above. 12. In their written statement, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. SDO (Civil), Rampur, who has been appointed as Re-habilitation and Re-settlement Officer of the respondents by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and who had to identify and recommend the families entitled for the grant of benefits under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan/Scheme. The respondents have stated that they have only granted benefits under the plan/scheme to those persons in whose favour landless certificate(s) has been issued by the SDO (Civil), Rampur. The case of the petitioner having been sent for further verification with reference to the land holding acquired by the petitioner as well as his brother and other co-sharers at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act vide letter dated 21.1.1998 and no response has been received by the respondents from the SDO (C), Rampur and, therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The respondents have also taken the stand in preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petition involves highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into/decided under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court. They have also stated that the petitioner has misconstrued and misunderstood the provisions of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme Plan as the benefit under the plan is to be granted to the families who have been rendered landless and houseless on account of acquisition of their land and houses and the status of the family, who is to be granted the benefits under the plan has to be seen as it existed in the revenue record at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents have stated that no land separately belonging to the petitioner was acquired but it was only the land in joint holding of the petitioner, his brothers Sunder Singh and Durga Singh as well as his three sisters and mother, was acquired and as per the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan, one member of their family was to be granted suitable employment and land as per the Scheme. The Resettlement and Rehabilitation Officer, issued a certificate in favour of Durga Singh who was identified for the purpose of grant of benefits under the Scheme by the SDO (Civil), Rampur and in pursuance of issuance of such certificate(s), all benefits have been granted to the family of the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits individually. It is further submitted by the respondents that Durga Singh had been granted land and paid Rs. 45,000/-in lieu of built up house and wife of Durga Singh having been nominated by the family of the petitioner has been provided employment and she is presently working as attendant with the respondents since June, 1996. The respondents have also taken the objection of delay and laches in pursuing the claim of the petitioner and filing the writ petition at the belated stage as one member of the petitioner family was given employment since June, 1996 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this writ petition. The respondents have also taken the objection of delay and laches in pursuing the claim of the petitioner and filing the writ petition at the belated stage as one member of the petitioner family was given employment since June, 1996 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this writ petition. The respondents further stated that the writ petition is mala fide and is merely an attempt on the part of the petitioner to make a hunt for employment, therefore, the petitioner is guilty of supresso veri and falsus uno inasmuch as he has not approached this Court with clean hands especially when all the benefits as admissible under the Scheme stands granted to the family of the petitioner and the petitioner is putting up his claim as a separate unit, which is causing unnecessary delay in the execution of the Project of national importance. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner as well as 6 members of the family were constituting one family and the benefit was required to be extended to one member of the family which benefit has already been granted to Durga Singh and that each member of the family of seven persons is not entitled to the benefits under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme/ Plan separately and if the petitioners claim is to be accepted, that would mean that employment to seven persons, seven built up houses and 35 bighas of developed land in all apart from the compensation for market value of the land and the houses/structures required would have to be given to each of the family of the petitioner and this would mean undue advantage to the petitioner and his other family members. On the basis of the defences as noticed above, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire materials on record. On the basis of the defences as noticed above, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire materials on record. It is not in dispute that under award Annexure-PA, 5 bighas of land has to be allotted to the person who has been recorded completely landless subject to the verification by the acquiring department from the SDO (C)-cum-Relief and Rehabilitation Officer, Rampur, The said officer is not a party-respondent in this writ petition but as he has been made party in CWP No. 1783 of 1998 and non-joinder of the said authority is not fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition as the said authority is only a recommendatory authority certifying whether the person has been rendered landless or not. From certificate Ex. PC, issued by the SDO (Civil), Rampur, in favour of the petitioner, it has been certified that from the report of the revenue officer of the area and Tehsildar Nirmand, the petitioner had a joint Khata in his name in chak Jhakri measuring 3-57-23 hectr. and the entire land was acquired for the purpose of N.J.P.C. Project and there is no other land left but in Tehsil Nirmand the petitioner has 0-19 biswas of land left in his name. Again on 2.9.1996, the SDO (Civil), Rampur written a letter marked Annexure PD to respondent No.2, wherein two landless certificates in original issued in favour of S/ Shri Dila Ram and Sunder Singh sons of Sh. Jo van Dass, village and Post Office, Jhakri along with affidavit for taking further necessary action and also asking the respondents that these two oustees may kindly be provided benefits as per the Scheme of landless persons. In reply to the legal notice Ex. PE dated 14.10.1996, served on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel, 2nd respondent vide his letter dated 8.11.1996 Annexure PF, informed the learned Counsel that the cases of the petitioner and another person Sunder Singh have already been sent to the higher authorities for taking necessary action in the matter and the petitioner will be informed about the decision in the matter. From letter dated 27.12.1997 Annexure-PG we find that the SDO (C)-cum-R&RO, Rampur Bushehr, has again requested the General Manager (Project) of the 1st respondent-Corporation by forwarding the representations preferred by the villagers of Jhakri for necessary action in which they have raised their demands for rehabilitation and employment of the oustees due to acquisition of their lands for the project of the respondents and in this letter name of the petitioner also finds mentioned at serial No, 1 amongst the other oustees. The petitioner has also filed certificate Annexure-PH dated 29.9.1996 issued by the Registrar, Birth 8b Death, Gram Panchayat Dhar-Gaura, H.P., wherein it is certified that the date of birth of Durga Singh son of Sarni, village Jhakri, Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla is28.12.1961 according to Parivar Register Part-I. It has also been certified that according to the record of the Panchayat Durga Singh is a son of Sh. Sarni and this fact has been entered at page-28 of the Pariwar Register Part-I at serial No. 51. The petitioner has also filed another certificate dated 21.9.1996 marked Annexure-PI, issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura, certifying that the petitioner is a son of Joban Dass, r/o village Jhakri, Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura and has been living separately from his brother Sunder Singh since about 11 years and according to the record of the Panchayat, his name has been entered separately in the Pariwar Register Part-1 at page-28 at serial No. 51. 14. The respondents have placed on record letter dated 21.1.1998 marked Annexure RI/A written by respondent No.2 to SDO(C)-cum-Relief and Rehabilitation Officer, Rampur on the subject providing benefits to landless families under R & R Plan, accompanied by a consolidated list of Additional Landless Families of Joint Khata Holders as per L.A.O. NJPC record identified by SDO (C)-cum-R & R Officer, Rampur till December 1997, stating therein that 34 Nos. cases of landless families for providing benefits under R & R plan earlier forwarded to respondent No. 2 were got scrutinized in his office and requesting the SDO (C) that only eligible cases out of 34 cases may kindly be forwarded to the office of respondent No. 2 for extending benefits under the plan may be forwarded. In the consolidated list of additional landless families, the petitioners name has figured at serial No. 1. In the consolidated list of additional landless families, the petitioners name has figured at serial No. 1. It appears that SDO (C) has not taken any decision on the said communication as nothing has been brought on record or to our notice by the parties. In his certificate Annexure PC, the SDO (C), Rampur after verification from the revenue officers has categorically stated that the petitioner had land in joint Khata’ in his name of at Chak Jhakri, measuring 3-57-23 hectr. and his entire land has been acquired for the Project but in Tehsil Nirmand, the petitioner has got 0-19 biswas of land left in his name. The case of the petitioner was again forwarded by the SDO (C), Rampur on 2.9.1996 to the 2nd respondent certifying him to be landless person for providing benefits under the Scheme vide Annexure-PD. Thereafter in reply to the legal notice, 2nd respondent has categorically stated that the case of the petitioner had already been sent to the higher authorities for taking further necessary action and again thereafter the SDO (C)-cum-R & RO, Rampur vide letter dated 27.12.1997 marked Annexure PG, recommended the case of the petitioner for granting him benefits under the plan along with the name of two other oustees. From all these documents, it is clearly proved on record that the land of the petitioner was acquired from his individual share out the joint khata for the construction of the project and the petitioner has been left with 0-19 biswas of land in his name after acquisition in Tehsil Nirmand and no other land has been found in his name in Tehsil Rampur, either individually or out of the joint Khata’ From certificate Annexure PH, issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura on 29.9.1996, Durga Singh has been recorded as son of Sarni in the Panchayat Record which would mean that Durga Singh is not the brother of the petitioner, who is son of Joban Dass alias Jobi and the stand of the respondents that the benefits under the Rehibilitation & Resettlement Plan has been given to one of the family members of the petitioner i.e. his brother Durga Singh, therefore, the petitioner is not held entitled for such benefits as a separate unit, is unsustainable and unjustified in the teeth of the documentary evidence Annexure PH issued by the Gram Panchayat, Dhar Gaiira. From another certificate issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura, Annexure PI, it is certified that the petitioner is living separately from his brother Sunder Singh since about 11 years and according to the record of the Panchayat, his name has been entered in the Pariwar Register separately which would mean to prove that the petitioner is not jointly living with his real brother Sunder Singh and he has got his independent unit and, therefore, owned separate land which was acquired for the purpose of Project. Thus, in the teeth of the overwhelming documentary evidence issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority noticed hereinabove, we hold that the petitioner is independently entitled for the grant of benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettelement Scheme/Plan and the award, and the objections for not granting of the benefits raised by the respondents in this writ petition are baseless and unfounded. The claim of the petitioner appears to be genuine that if the Khata of the family or the large number of people of the village is shown as joint in the revenue record and the petitioner is holding separate land, owned and possessed by him irrespective of the entry in the revenue record in the joint Khata’ that does not mean that the petitioner is not the owner of the land which was independently acquired. The petitioner has established on record by placing sufficient and relevant materials to show that he has been living separately from his brother and has been maintaining his land and residential house independently from other Khata holders of the joint land and in this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to be joint with the other members of the family and holding joint land with them and not as an independent family. The Division Bench of Orissa High Court in AIR 1956 Orissa 56, Mrs. Sushila Baral v. John Bunyan Baral and others, had the occasion to interpret the meaning of "Family" under Section 4 of the Partition Act, (1893) and held that the person constituting the family must live together under one head or management and it is in that sense that the expression has been used in Section 4 and a person does not become, by reason of inheritance alone, ipso facto a member of the family to whose property he succeeds. In AIR 1952 Madras 33, Krishna Pillaiv. Thekke Valia Veeti, Parukutty Ammal, the learned Single Judge while dealing with the provisions of Section 4 of Partition Act, has said that a mere mothers sisters son, cannot be purchasing a share in the dwelling house from a member of the undivided family enjoying the dwelling house in common with other members, resist the application of Section 4 to him on the ground that he is also "a member of the family" especially when he never lived in the dwelling house at any time as a member of the family. In AIR 1957 SC 133, Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and others, the learned Judges of the apex Court has given the meaning of the word family under the Hindu Law as under:— "The word family in its popular sense means children, and when the settlor recites that he has no children, that is an indication that the dedication is not for the benefit of the family but for the public." 15. The apex Court is obliged to define the Family under Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act (18 of 1960) in KA. Muthu v. Angamuthu (1997-2-L.W. 447) and the meaning has been defined in para-14 of the report as follows:— "14. In its ordinary and primary sense, the term "Family" signifies the collective body of persons living in one house or under one head or manager or one domestic Government. In its restricted sense, "Family" would include only parents and their children. It may include even grand-children and all the persons of the same blood living together. In its broader sense, it may include persons who are not connected by blood depending upon the context in which the word is used." 16. Taking the meaning of the Family as defined in the judgments of the Courts mentioned hereinabove in the present case, the petitioner cannot be said to be a member of the joint family Khata with others when he is living and holding his individual share in the land and residential property separately from the joint family. The action of the respondents in describing the petitioner as one of the members of the joint Khata, is not legally sustainable and, therefore, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the award and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme/Plan prepared by the respondents. The action of the respondents in describing the petitioner as one of the members of the joint Khata, is not legally sustainable and, therefore, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the award and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme/Plan prepared by the respondents. We direct the respondents to grant the benefits to the petitioner permissible under the award and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan and the decision to taken by the respondents within two months from today. 17. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the respondents based upon the defences taken by the respondents in their counter noticed above, are not tenable and, therefore, not accepted for the reasons stated hereinabove. The learned Counsel for the respondents have also contended that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided by this Court in an extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582, Visakhapatnam Port Trust and another v. Ram Bahadur Thakur Pvt Ltd. and others. In that case, the Honble Judges of the apex Court have held that where highly disputed questions of fact arises for decision, Civil suit instead of writ petition would be the appropriate action for the aggrieved party. We have no quarrel so far legal position settled by now by the apex Court about the maintainability of the writ petition, if it involves highly disputed questions of fact which requires leading of the evidence etc. We may with an advantage referred to the judgment of the apex Court in 1970 (1) Supreme Court Cases 582, Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. and another v. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and another, in which the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in para-8 of the report held that the High Court may, in exercise of its discretion, decline to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But the discretion is judicial if the petition makes a claim which is frivolous, vexatious or prima facie unjust or may not appropriately be tried in a petition invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction, the Court may decline to entertain the petition. But the discretion is judicial if the petition makes a claim which is frivolous, vexatious or prima facie unjust or may not appropriately be tried in a petition invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction, the Court may decline to entertain the petition. It proceeded to hold that but a party claiming to be aggrieved by the action of a public body or authority on the plea that the action is unlawful, high-handed, arbitrary or unjust the party is entitled to hearing of its petition on merits. In (1974) 2 Supreme Court Cases 706, Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and others, the apex Court again emphasises that in a petition under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law and exercise of the jurisdiction is no doubt discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises complex question of fact, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute should not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. In the present petition as we have noticed in the earlier part of the judgment that to decide the entitlement of the petitioner for the grant of benefits under the award and Re-habilitation and Resettlement Plan/Scheme, the entire material is on record before us which is either in the nature of certificates issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death of the Gram Panchayat, Dhar Gaura and also the recommendations made by the SDO (Civil)-cum-R & RO, Rampur holding the petitioner entitled for the grant of the benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan/Scheme and to direct the petitioner to go to Civil Court as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents would only be to shirk our responsibility under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the writ petition on hand, on consideration of the nature of the controversy, we do not find that disputed questions of fact is involved which would deprive this Court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. CWP No. 542 of 1998. 18. In this writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 0-19-32 hectr. CWP No. 542 of 1998. 18. In this writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 0-19-32 hectr. and his residential house in village Jhakri which were acquired by the respondents in the year 1991 for construction of residential colony for the employees of the Project. The petitioner claims to be a poor agriculturist and has been rendered landless after acquisition of his entire land by the respondents. He claims that he is entitled for the benefits of the grant of the land, a constructed house and suitable employment in accordance with the terms of the award and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan/Scheme framed by the respondents. The SDM-cum-R&RO, Rampur issued certificate in his favour marked Annexure-PC stating that from the report of the revenue officers of the area and Tehsil Nirmand, the petitioner had land in joint Khata in his name in Chak Jhakri, measuring 3-57-23 hectr. and his entire land was acquired for the construction of the Project and that no other land was left with him in Tehsil Rampur, but in Tehsil Nirmand he has got 0-19 biswas of land. His claim for the grant of benefits under the Scheme of landless was forwarded to the 2nd respondent by the SDO (C)-cum-Relief and Rehabilitation Officer, Rampur on 2.9.1996 marked Annexure-PD, along with his brother Dila Ram who is petitioner in CWP No. 385 of 1998, but no action appears to have been taken by the respondents on his claim and the petitioner thereafter got issued a legal notice marked Annexure-PE dated 24.10.1996 to the respondents and in response to the notice, a letter was sent by 2nd respondent dated 8.11.1996 Annexure-PF intimating the learned Counsel of the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner had already been sent to the higher authorities for taking necessary action. 19. The petitioner has also filed a certificate of the Registrar, Birth and Death, Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura dated 29.9.1996, wherein the Registrar has stated that Durga Singh son of Sh. Sarni, village Jhakri, Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura, Tehsil Rampur, was born on 28.12.1961 according to the entry in Parivar Register Part-I and who is a son of Sh. Sarni and this fact is entered at page-29, serial No. 1. of the said Pariwar Register. Sarni, village Jhakri, Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura, Tehsil Rampur, was born on 28.12.1961 according to the entry in Parivar Register Part-I and who is a son of Sh. Sarni and this fact is entered at page-29, serial No. 1. of the said Pariwar Register. The petitioner has also filed a certificate dated 21.9.1996 marked Annexure-PH, issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura, stating therein that the petitioner is living separately from his brother Dila Ram since about 11 years and according to the record of the Panchayat, his name has been entered at serial No. 31 of page 28 of the said Pariwar Register. On the basis of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents filed with the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the reliefs noticed above in this writ petition. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have taken same and identical defences put forward by them in opposition to writ petition No. 385 of 1998 filed by Dila Ram brother of the petitioner Sunder Singh. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter of the respondents in which averments made in the writ petition have been re-asserted and reiterated. The petitioner has stated that the objections of the respondents for non-joinder of SDO (C)-cum-R&RO, Rampur is not sustainable as the said authority has identified the petitioner as landless person and has recommended that he may be provided the benefits under the Scheme/Plan and as no relief is claimed for against the said authority, therefore, the objections raised by the respondents are not sustainable. The petitioner has filed a copy of the mutation marked Annexure-PR-l/A dated 8.6.1972 showing that Durga Singh son, Leela daughter and Hari widow of deceased Sarni have inherited the property of the deceased in equal shares and thereby the defence of the respondents that Durga Singh is son of Joban Dass and brother of the petitioner stands falsified. The petitioner has also stated that most of the land holding in village Jhakri belongs to one Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh and it was denoted by single Khasra number. Rajkumar Rajinder Singh sold or gave away small shares in the main Khasra number and under these circumstances, most of the vendees and person(s) in possession are co-owners of the land though they are in possession of the same in their individual capacities. Rajkumar Rajinder Singh sold or gave away small shares in the main Khasra number and under these circumstances, most of the vendees and person(s) in possession are co-owners of the land though they are in possession of the same in their individual capacities. The compensation for the land holding of the petitioner has also been paid to him in his individual capacity and it does not now behove the respondents to create an unnecessary and false controversy in order to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner and the respondents have been taking different stands in different writ petitions and have also succeeded in denying the petitioner his legitimate claim for the past 7 years on one pretext or the other even though the SDO (C), Rampur has recommended his case a number of times and Annexure R-l/A is now an afterthought in order to defeat and delay the implementation bf the Scheme. The petitioner has also stated that in case any benefit has been granted to Durga Singh the same has been given to him on account of his own entitlement and the grant of the same cannot be an excuse to deny these benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that as would be clear from Annexure PF, the respondents have themselves informed the petitioner in November, 1996 that his case was being considered by the higher authorities and that the petitioner was assured repeatedly by the respondents that he would be granted benefits but was only informed orally for the first time in January 1998 that his case could not be considered. Therefore, the question of delay and laches pleaded by the respondents in their counter is not sustainable in law and the writ petition has been filed immediately after the oral refusal of the respondents. The petitioner further stated that he has put up no impediments in the execution of the project which is of National importance and it is only the respondents who are wasting their time and money by devoting their energies towards defeating the legitimate claims of the person(s) like the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that he has put up no impediments in the execution of the project which is of National importance and it is only the respondents who are wasting their time and money by devoting their energies towards defeating the legitimate claims of the person(s) like the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an application being CMP No. 1523 of 1999 for placing on record the documents marked Annexures A-1 and A-2 to contend that the compensation for the acquired land was paid to the petitioner in his individual capacity by the respondents and compensation paid to said Durga Singh in his individual capacity. However, in one or two places of the award Durga Singh has been shown as Durga Singh son of Joban, whereas he is son of Sarni. The fact of showing the name of Durga Singh son of Sarni is found mentioned in the order passed by the Collector in File No. 4-VTII/ 90 decided on 12.3.19991. In jamabandi for the year 1988-89 (Annexure A-l), the name of Durga Singh has been shown as Durga Singh son of Sarni along with other members of the deceased Sarni. 20. Reply to this application has also been filed by the respondents stating therein that no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the order dated 12.3.1991 passed by the Collector, Rampur, inasmuch as, the Collector has only remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade, Rampur for early trial. The respondents have stated that no benefit can also be derived from Annexure A-2 which is not relevant in adjudicating the present dispute between the parties. The petitioner has filed another application being CMP No. 155/ 99 seeking to place on record the additional documents marked Annexures P-l to P-3. Annexure P-l, is a letter dated 3.2.1999 issued by the SDO (C)-cum-R&RO, Rampur to the petitioner intimating him that his case for granting benefits under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme was returned by the N.J.PSC. regarding joint Khata/ownership and re-consideration. However, the cases could not be finalised in the light of the newly approved definition of Landless Project Affected Family finalised by the Board of Directors on 3.11.1998. As this definition was not found practicable or logical for extending benefits to affected persons, the matter has been referred back to N.J.P.C. authorities vide office letter No. 1358-61 dated 27.1.1999 for re-consideration and review. As this definition was not found practicable or logical for extending benefits to affected persons, the matter has been referred back to N.J.P.C. authorities vide office letter No. 1358-61 dated 27.1.1999 for re-consideration and review. The clarification/opinion of N. J.P.C. has been sought from the authorities, therefore, the list of landless families can only be certified after the matter regarding joint ownership and definition of landless family is finalised. It is also stated that it would not be out of place to mention that till date the words/ pharses such as family, landless family, project affected family has not been defined. 21. The SDO (C)-cum-Rehabilitation and Resettlement Officer, Rampur Bushehr has written a letter in May 1998 (Annexure P-2/1) to the 2nd Respondent to resolve the problem about the grant of the benefits which are being given by the NJPC to each of the displaced/landless family, should also be granted to those families, which are joint, but according to the Panchayat record living separately and requesting the 2nd respondent to grant benefits and intimate the same to the SDO (Urban). This Court on 2.12.1998 in CMP No. 1523/98 directed the respondents to file reply to this application within three weeks and posted the writ petition on 23.12.1998 on which date the record was directed to be produced by the learned Counsel for the respondents in support of their defence in the written statement. When the matter came up before the court on 23.12.1998, the respondents were directed to place on record the decision, if any, taken by the competent authority and the matter was adjourned to 16.3.1999. Again on 17.3.1999, as a final chance three weeks further time was granted to respondents for placing on record the decision so taken by the 1st respondent pursuant to the letter dated 3.2.1999 sent by the SDO (Civil)-cum-Relief and Rehabilitation Officer, Rampur Bushehr, a copy of which is placed on record marked Annexure-P-1 with CMP No. 155/99. The respondents thereafter filed an application being CMP No. 245/99 seeking for six months time for Board of Directors to consider and taking decision, which came up before this Court on 19.4.1999 and the Court passed the following orders:— "Heard learned Counsel on either side. It is rather unfortunate that the respondent-applicant Board has been coming with such a request, as a matter of fact this writ petition has been heard for quite some time. It is rather unfortunate that the respondent-applicant Board has been coming with such a request, as a matter of fact this writ petition has been heard for quite some time. Adjournments have been given to enforce production of certain relevant records and thereafter also to enable the Board to take a decision in the matter for which they sought time already for nearly more than three months. The request now made for further adjournment by 6 months is most unreasonable and cannot be countenanced. As a final chance, the matter shall stand adjourned for three weeks by which time either the Board will take a decision or the matter will be heard and disposed of." On 24.5.1999, when the matter came up before the Court, Mr. Ramakant Sharma made a request on behalf of the respondents that the case may be adjourned for four weeks to enable him to seek instructions from the respondents whether the Board has taken decision in the matter for which the time had already been granted to them. When the matter came up on 30.6.1999, no decision appears to have been taken by the respondents despite several opportunities granted to them and the Court left with no alternative but to .hear the arguments on the writ petition and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the judgment was reserved. 22. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides and examined the entire materials on record. The present petition shall also stand allowed on the same reasonings recorded by us in disposing of CWP No. 385/98 as the facts and law involved in this writ petition are same and identical and we have already given our elaborate discussions and resonings in CWP No. 385/98. The reasonings and conclusion arrived at by us in CWP No. 1783/96 and CWP No. 385/ 98 shall also apply to the facts and circumstances of this writ petition and in the teeth of the documents issued b}~ the Registrar, Birth and Death, Gram Panchayat Dhar Gaura, Tehsil Rampur and Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Relief and Rehabilitation Officer, Rampur Bushehr, we hold that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for by him in this writ petition as noticed above. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to grant benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the award and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme/Plan within two months from today. 23. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to grant benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the award and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme/Plan within two months from today. 23. CMPs No. 1523 & 155/99 are accordingly allowed and the additional documents sought to be produced on record are taken on record and shall form part of the writ petition. 24. For the above-stated reasons and discussions, writ petition Nos. 1783/96, 385/98 and 542/98 shall stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.