JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition seeking to quash order dated 01.03.2011 passed by the Grievance Redressal Cell, Tehri Dam Project (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no. 2’), whereby the claim of the petitioner for compensation, in accordance with his entitlement as per the Rehabilitation Policy was allegedly rejected. A direction was sought to the respondent-authorities to grant all permissible rehabilitation benefits to the appellant. 2. Very briefly put, the case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was as follows: Appellant is a permanent resident of village Kumrada in District Uttarkashi. The grandfather of the appellant was one Chota; he had four sons, namely, Khantu, Gobru, Sundar Singh and Bharat Singh. Appellant is the son of Gobru; Sunder Singh had two sons, namely, Dheer Singh and Prem Singh. Bharat Singh had two grand sons, namely, Pratap Singh and Asad Singh. We think it sufficient to refer to the family tree as above, as it is sufficient to resolve the controversy, which is raised before us. The further allegations are that the predecessor in interest of the appellant was recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights in two villages of Patti Dichli, namely, Kumrada and Badhan Gaon of District Uttarkashi. In village Kumrada, it is alleged that the name of the predecessor in interest of the appellant was recorded in Khata no. 24, 40, 71 and 8. In village Badhan Gaon, the name of the predecessor in interest of the appellant was recorded in Khata no. 18 of the revenue records. The land in question, namely, Khata no. 24, 40, 71, 8 and 18, as aforesaid, was acquired for the purpose of the construction of the Tehri Dam. As regards Khata No. 71 in village Kumrada, the case of the appellant is that the land measuring 32 nali and 15 muthi recorded in Khata No. 71 was acquired for the purpose of the construction of Tehri Dam. The dispute, which arose, according to the appellant, is best put in the following pleadings in paragraph 8, 9, 10 & 11, which reads as under: “8. The dispute, which arose, according to the appellant, is best put in the following pleadings in paragraph 8, 9, 10 & 11, which reads as under: “8. That the entire dispute arose for the reason that during the Fasli Year 1377 to 1382 after the death of Chota S/o Jaimal the name of Khantu, Gobru, Sundru and Bharatu who were the sons of Chota had been recorded on the basis of succession vide order dated 21.05.1976. True copy of the khatauni of Fasli year 1377 to 1382 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. 9. That, however, further in next Fasli year so prepared for the year 1387 to 1392 the name of Dheer Singh and Prem Singh sons of Sundru had been record as legal heirs of Chota S/o Jaimal vide order dated 10.06.1984 in Khata No. 71. True copy of the khatauni of Fasli year 1387-1392 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. 10. That it is most respectfully submitted that once the order of mutation had been made in Fasli Year 1377 to 1382 vide order dated 21.5.1976, it was incumbent upon the concerned revenue authority to record the name of all the sons of Chota in the next khatauni so prepared and inaction and omission on the part of revenue authorities had continued till the year 1984 and due to the clerical mistake only the name of Dheer Singh and Prem Singh sons of Sundar Singh has been recorded in revenue records and other legal heirs of Chota had been left out. Since wrong mutation entries had been made in the revenue records, the said mistake perpetuated till the next Fasli year of 1400-1405 and this became the root cause of the dispute inasmuch as the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued on 10.7.2002 and for passing the award under Land Acquisition Act, the khatauni of Fasli year 1400-1405 had been considered. 11. That since the authorities involved in the acquisition of land were considering the khatauni of Fasli Year 1400-1405 and the name of present petitioner was not recorded in Khata No. 71 therefore no notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued to the present petitioner or his predecessors in interest. 11. That since the authorities involved in the acquisition of land were considering the khatauni of Fasli Year 1400-1405 and the name of present petitioner was not recorded in Khata No. 71 therefore no notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued to the present petitioner or his predecessors in interest. True copy of the proforma showing that the notices under Section 9 with respect to Khata No. 71 had been issued to Dheer Singh and Prem Singh S/o Sundar Singh is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.” 3. It is the further case of the appellant that the appellant and the predecessors were having possession over the aforesaid piece of land. In regard to Khata No. 71, no notice was issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and it is alleged that, as no notice was issued, they made inquiry and they came to know about the entries in the mutation, which were due to a clerical mistake. It is further averred that land in Khata No. 71 was not taken into consideration for determining the eligibility of the appellant and the authorities proceeded on the basis that the land acquired is less than 50% of the total holdings of the appellant and he has not acquired the status of project affected families. At this juncture, we must refer to the policy, which has been enunciated, called as the rehabilitation policy. The rehabilitation policy is produced to show that under the same, when more than 50% of a persons holding is acquired, he becomes entitled not only to the monetary compensation, but he is also entitled to be rehabilitated by providing him with land. If the land in Khata No. 71 is also treated as belonging to the father of the appellant, then the total land, according to the appellant, would be more than 50% and then, he would become rehabilitated oustee under the rehabilitation policy. It is the case of the appellant that, on realizing the mistake, an application was preferred before the Tehsildar on 22.09.2003 and the mutation was corrected and khatauni for the Fasli Year 1406-1411 is produced as Annexure-6. Annexure-5 is the order passed on the application. It is further alleged that an application was given to Special Land Acquisition Officer, as he has to determine the compensation. Annexure-5 is the order passed on the application. It is further alleged that an application was given to Special Land Acquisition Officer, as he has to determine the compensation. Annexure-7 purports to be the compensation certificate. Annexure-8 purports to be the report of the Patwari submitted before the Naib Tehsildar and the Officer In-charge of the Rehabilitation, wherein it is stated that due to clerical mistake, the name of the predecessors in interest of the appellant could not be recorded and the same was not considered. Annexure-9 purports to be total list of lands produced to show that, reckoning the land in Khata No. 71, the percentage of land acquired from the appellant’s branch would be 55.20. On the said basis, complaint was lodged before the Grievance Redressal Cell constituted as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said body proceeded to consider the claim, noting, inter alia, that the name of the predecessor in interest of the appellant was not included in their records as on 12.07.2002, which is the date on which the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and taking into consideration all the other lands, which were acquired from the branch of the appellant and the other branches namely, the other three sons other than sons of Sunder Singh, the applications filed by appellant’s father and also the other members representing other two branches, was rejected. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition finding no merit in the claim for rehabilitation, but ordered as follows: “Present petition, thus, stands disposed of with the observation that petitioner is not entitled for allotment of any land, however, petitioner may move an appropriate application within ten days from today before the authorities for release of the compensation amount and as per the observations and directions made by the Grievance Redressal Cell, petitioner shall be paid cash compensation within ninety days from the date representation/application is moved. If such payment is not released within ninety days, the petitioner shall also be paid interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date land was acquired till the date actual payment is made to the petitioner.” 4. The review filed by the appellant was also unsuccessful. Hence, the appeal. 5. We heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. The review filed by the appellant was also unsuccessful. Hence, the appeal. 5. We heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2 and also Mr Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3. 6. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a clear case, where mistake is committed in the revenue records. We have already pointed out the family tree. Accordingly, on the basis of the same, it is pointed out that as per the khatauni for the fasli year 1377 for a period of 10 years thereafter, the names of all the four sons of Chota were included. It is only the case of an error that, in the subsequent khataunis, only the name of Sunder Singh, one of the sons of Chota, was included. Upon coming to know about the mistake on not receiving notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, application was moved before the authority concerned and the order was passed. The translation of the same, made available to us at the time of hearing, reads as follows: “Office Tehsildar Dunda Mutation Case No. 713/02-03 Section 34 L.R. Act. Khantu another – Applicant Vs. Chhota Singh – Respondent Village Kumrada JUDGMENT Present mutation suit commenced on the basis of mutation application dated 22.09.2003 by the petitioner Khantu etc. Declaration letter was issued after duly registering the suit. Declaration letter of service of suit is on the record. No objection is received. Petitioners have stated in their mutation application that “we are four sons of our father Late Chhota Singh out of which our two brothers have died. Declaration letter was issued after duly registering the suit. Declaration letter of service of suit is on the record. No objection is received. Petitioners have stated in their mutation application that “we are four sons of our father Late Chhota Singh out of which our two brothers have died. After death of our Late father, mutation of the whole movable and immovable property of our father was to be made in the name of we four brothers but Land Inspector Sunargaon has entered mutation of the whole movable and immovable property of our Late father in the name of sons of our Late brother, which is completely wrong, whereas as per rules mutation of the whole movable and immovable property of our Late father Chhota was to be entered in the name of Khantu, gobru and sons of our Late brothers Dhir Singh and Prem Singh and Pratap Singh and Asadh Singh.” Petitioners have produced family register (detail) in the form of Affidavit. In support of their mutation application the petitioners have got examined the statements of Natthi Singh and Head of village Counsel Kumrada, Narottam Singh and of co-tenant’s. Statements of witnesses support the produced family register/detail. By the perusal of produced Khatauni from the year 1387 to 1392 Chhota’s mutation is entered in the name of Dhir Singh, Prem Singh, sons of Sundar Singh in the year 1984 which is wrong as per the statements of witnesses and produced family register/detail. As per produced proofs mutation of deceased Chhota seems to be justified in accordance with the produced family register/detail. Therefore, following order is passed. Order Entered account holder Dhir Singh, Prem Singh, sons of Sundar Singh in Account No. 71 of Khatauni of Village Kumrada for the Fy. Year 1406 to 141 on the basis of inheritance names of Khantu, Gobru, sons of Chhota and Pratap Singh, Asadh Singh, sons of Bharat Singh (son of deceased chhota) be entered as co-account holder. No costs. Mutation be entered accordingly case file be consigned. Date: 27.10.2003 Entered on page 335 K. Sd/- Illegible 29.10.2003 A.R.K. Sd/- Illegible Tehsildar, Dunda (True Copy)” 7. Therefore, he would submit that the action of the respondents to deprive the appellant of the benefits vouchsafed under the rehabilitation policy cannot be sustained and the order of the Grievance Redressal Cell deserves to be set-aside. 8. Date: 27.10.2003 Entered on page 335 K. Sd/- Illegible 29.10.2003 A.R.K. Sd/- Illegible Tehsildar, Dunda (True Copy)” 7. Therefore, he would submit that the action of the respondents to deprive the appellant of the benefits vouchsafed under the rehabilitation policy cannot be sustained and the order of the Grievance Redressal Cell deserves to be set-aside. 8. In fact, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that if the appellant is entitled, then the mere fact that the sons of Sunder Singh have been given land will not detract the right of the appellant to claim benefits, and if the appellant’s case is correct, then the appellant will also be entitled to be treated as an oustee and will be given all the benefits. 9. Per contra, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 would submit that the notification under Section 4 was issued on 12.07.2002. This is the most crucial date to be ascertained for the implementation of the rehabilitation policy. Pointing to the rehabilitation policy, it is contended that the rights are crystallized with reference to the position as on the date of Section 4 notification. As on the date of Section 4 notification, it is not in dispute that the name of the father of the appellant was not included. Instead, in regard to Khata No. 71, the names of the sons of Sunder Singh, paternal uncle of the appellant, were included. Accordingly, acquisition proceeding progressed through various stages, including the notice under Section 9. Award was passed on 30.09.2004. As regards reliance on the khatauni for the year 1976, it is pointed out that a definite contention is taken in the counter affidavit disputing it. Insofar as the judgment, which is cited in the mutation proceedings, it is his case that it appears to be collusive and it was obtained within a month of filing. It is pointed out that it is the authority THDC, which is actually paying for the rehabilitation package. Therefore, it has serious ramification, insofar as under the rehabilitation package, the THDC will be obliged to pay for the acquisition of developed land in and around Municipal area of districts Dehradun and Haridwar. The amount will run into crores. It is pointed out that it is the authority THDC, which is actually paying for the rehabilitation package. Therefore, it has serious ramification, insofar as under the rehabilitation package, the THDC will be obliged to pay for the acquisition of developed land in and around Municipal area of districts Dehradun and Haridwar. The amount will run into crores. It is also submitted that, in fact, in the khatauni of the year 1976, land is described as Shreni-II, which is bhumidhari with non transferable right, which is capable of being abandoned. He would also submit that report of Tehsildar is also disputed. 10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would also point out that the relevant date is the date of Section 4 notification. 11. The stand of Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in regard to the date 12.07.2002, being the date of the notification under Section 4 and, therefore, being the only crucial date, is that it is intended to crystallize the rights in cases, where there are transfers made after the date of the notification by the original owner, and so as to prevent the misuse; whereas, in this case there was a genuine error, which was corrected in the revenue records and once an error is corrected, may be on a later day, it would relate back and, therefore, it is the case of the appellant in law and equity, that the appeal should be allowed. 12. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Court is not an Appellate Forum. The judicial function, in certiorari jurisdiction, is supervisory in nature. In fact, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel has a case that a complaint of the nature, which is projected before the Grievance Redressal Cell, was not contemplated, as it was intended only to correct the minor complaints of the project affected families. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. No doubt, the learned Single Judge, in the course of judgment found that the appellant could not point out any document, which would tend to show that the appellant had a right over the property of the predecessor in interest of the appellant over khata no. 71. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. No doubt, the learned Single Judge, in the course of judgment found that the appellant could not point out any document, which would tend to show that the appellant had a right over the property of the predecessor in interest of the appellant over khata no. 71. The obvious answer to this is Annexure No.5, which is produced by the appellant to show that on the death of Chota, his four sons, including the father of the appellant, were included in the khatauni. It is contended that the said document cannot be relied on. As we have already noted the dates, the date of the notification under Section 4 is 12.07.2002. The appellant moved the application for correction, after more than a year of the said date i.e. 22.09.2003. The order on the said application is pronounced in little over a month from the date of the institution, namely, on 27.10.2003. The award dated 30.09.2004 is not produced before us. The case of the appellant, we must notice is that they were activised, on non-receipt of any notice, under Section 9 in relation to khata no. 71, in moving the application on 22.09.2003. For a very long period of time, the names of the sons of Sunder Singh alone were included; they continued to be included as on the date of the enunciation of the policy in the year 1998. In fact, their names were included exclusively in the year 1984, and the said position continued till after the order was passed on 27.10.2003. It is only after the acquisition proceedings commenced that the application was moved on 22.09.2003 by the predecessor in interest of the appellant, namely, his father and, as noticed already, was disposed of within one month. At this juncture, we must remind ourselves to the contention of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel that it could be a collusive affair and that the sons of Sunder Singh would have nothing to loose, as they would get the compensation and the promised fruits of the Rehabilitation Policy. 13. We would think that there is no merit in the appellant’s case. Appellant seeks certiorari & mandamus, and both the writs are premised on the terms of the Rehabilitation Policy. It is the Rehabilitation Policy, which is sought to be implemented. Therefore, the terms of the Rehabilitation Policy are of paramount importance. 13. We would think that there is no merit in the appellant’s case. Appellant seeks certiorari & mandamus, and both the writs are premised on the terms of the Rehabilitation Policy. It is the Rehabilitation Policy, which is sought to be implemented. Therefore, the terms of the Rehabilitation Policy are of paramount importance. In the Rehabilitation Policy, the only date, which is apparently relevant, is the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Going by the said date, appellant has no case. The appellant has not even produced the award to substantiate his case and, if the award had been produced, it could have been at least demonstrated that after obtaining an order on the mutation application on 27.10.2003, it was produced before the authority, which passed the award on 30.09.2004. As far as Annexure No.-7 is concerned, it is seen that there is no date mentioned as such, but at the bottom, we notice that it is in March, 2013. In fact, it is a letter addressed by the appellant to the Special Land Acquisition Authority, wherein, he says that the land in the name of the father of the appellant late Sri Khantu S/o Chota of Khatauni Khata No. 71 of village Kumrada has been acquired for the Tehri Dam Project, the compensation of which is prepared in your office. It is, therefore, requested that kindly issue certificate in respect of compensation of Khata no. 71 of the father of the applicants’. Thereafter, appellant has a case that this is the compensation certificate issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, according to the appellant, as seen allegations from paragraph no. 16. 14. As far as treating the appellant as an oustee is concerned, it is a matter, where appellant has a duty to prove it and he has failed to prove it before the Grievance Redressal Cell and, in judicial review, the reason given by the Grievance Redressal Cell in the facts showing that, as on the date of the notification under Section 4, appellant was not having any right, is justified. 15. In such circumstances, we do not see any merit in the case of the appellant. The Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.