JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. Heard. 2. By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, judgment and decree dated 03.05.2019 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 19/13 of 2018, affirming judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 41/1 of 2014, is sought to be assailed by the appellant. 3. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status which they held before the learned trial Court. Respondent No. 1 herein, was the plaintiff, whereas the appellant and proforma respondent herein, were the defendants 1 and 2 respectively. 4. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of appeal are that defendant No. 1 acquired immoveable properties under the Land Acquisition Act for public purpose namely construction of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project in the area of Villages Harnora and Kasol in District Bilaspur, H.P. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, for the purposes of such acquisition was issued on 23.11.2000. 5. 16 biswas of land including the structure thereon, owned by the plaintiff, was also acquired. Plaintiff was paid Rs. 5,72,826.27 as compensation for land and Rs. 1,13,564 for structure standing thereon. 6. A Tripartite Agreement Ext. DW-1/B, had been executed between defendants as first and second parties thereto and Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board as third party on 26.02.2000. Clause 3.01 of the agreement Ext.DW-1/B provided for Resettlement & Rehabilitation issues of Kol Dam oustees. Defendant No. 2 had undertaken Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme (R&R), as detailed in Annexure-II to the agreement and defendant No. 1 had undertaken to extend all necessary assistance and inputs in implementing the R&RS. The costs of R&RS were to be incurred by defendant No. 2. 7. The Scheme for Rehabilitation and Resettlement for the oustees of Koldam HEP was detailed in Annexure-II to the agreement. As per Clause 2.1.1 the entitlement of Resettlement grant was as under: “2.1.1. Resettlement Grant Each oustee family which will be rendered houseless on account of acquisition of land/house for the KOL DAM Project shall be entitled to: (a) A compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in the form of houseless grant. As per Clause 2.1.1 the entitlement of Resettlement grant was as under: “2.1.1. Resettlement Grant Each oustee family which will be rendered houseless on account of acquisition of land/house for the KOL DAM Project shall be entitled to: (a) A compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in the form of houseless grant. (b) Infrastructural facility in the oustee colony which will include developed house site measuring 50’ x 40’ (one plot for each family), electrification for street lights line for drinking water suitable, pacca approach road/path and Sulabh Sauchalaya. Families who do not opt for plot of land (including other infrastructure) will be entitled for Rs. 25,000/- as infrastructure grant in the same line.” 8. Similarly, the landless grant and eligible family grant was to be provided in terms of Clauses 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of Annexure-II as under: “2.2.1 Landless Grant The families who are rendered landless on account of acquisition of their land shall be eligible for landless grant in the following manner: (i) Family which having more than 5 Bighas land rendered landless - Rs 50,000/-. (ii) Family whose land holding was less than 5 Bighas and rendered landless Rs. 45,000/-. (iii) Families who are left with less than one Biswa after acquisition will be treated as landless. 2.2.2 Eligible Family Grant Eligible families shall be those who do not become landless but their land holding is rendered to less than 5 Bighas on account of acquisition: (i) Families who are left with land more than one Biswa and upto 2-10-0 Bighas one time grant of = Rs. 40,000/-. (ii) Families who are left with more than 2-10-0 Bighas but less than 5 Bighas one time grant of = Rs. 35,000/-. The Deputy Commissioner concerned will be the sanctioning authority for Rehabilitation grant, which shall be provided by the project authorities and placed at the disposal of the concerned Deputy Commissioner, for disbursement to eligible families. All these grants shall be in addition to the compensation paid under Land Acquisition Act.” 9. The plaintiff, by filing the suit before learned trial Court, raised her grievance with respect to non-conferment of the benefits of R&R Scheme on her despite demand. All these grants shall be in addition to the compensation paid under Land Acquisition Act.” 9. The plaintiff, by filing the suit before learned trial Court, raised her grievance with respect to non-conferment of the benefits of R&R Scheme on her despite demand. She sought the declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was Kol Dam oustee and was entitled to a residential plot in Jumthal Colony alongwith houseless grant and all other benefits permissible to the oustees of Kol Dam as per the R&R Scheme. Mandatory injunction was also sought against the defendants directing them to pay the houseless grant to the plaintiff alongwith costs of suit. 10. The defendants contested the suit primarily on the ground that the plaintiff after her marriage was not residing in village Kasol, District Bilaspur and her name was not figuring in the family register maintained by the Gram Panchayat, Harnora. As per the defendants, only those persons were entitled to the benefit of R&R Scheme whose names were recorded in the Parivar Register of concerned Panchayat on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Such defence was based by the defendants by taking into consideration the definition of family provided in Clause 1.2 (b) of R&R Scheme, which reads as under: “(b) “Family” means husband/wife, who is entered as owner/co-owner of land in the Revenue Record, their children including step or adopted children and includes his/her parents and those brothers and sisters who are living jointly with him/her as per entries of Panchayat Parivar Register as on the date of Notification under Section-4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Provided that only the Panchayat Parivar Register entry, as it stood on the date of Notification under Section-4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be taken into account for the purpose of ‘Separate Family’ for Rehabilitation benefit i.e. consideration for employment etc.” 11. Learned trial Court as also the learned Appellate Court concurrently returned the following findings on facts: (i) The plaintiff had her origin from village Kasol, Gram Panchayat, Harnora, District Bilaspur, H.P. (ii) The plaintiff was married outside the limits of Gram Panchayat, Harnora in the year 1986 and thereafter her name was struck off from the family register of Gram Panchayat, Harnora wherein the members of family headed by her father were recorded. (iii) A matrimonial dispute arose between her and her husband and she returned back to village Kasol in April, 2000 and thereafter started residing there. (iv) The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23.11.2000 and at the time of issuance of such notification, plaintiff was residing in Village Kasol. The marriage of plaintiff with her husband was ordered to be dissolved by a decree of court of competent jurisdiction in the year 2006. (v) The name of plaintiff was re-entered as a separate family in the Parivar Register of Gram Panchayat, Harnora in the year 2009. 12. On the basis of aforesaid findings, both the Courts below have held that since the plaintiff was residing in village Kasol at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and her property was also subjected to acquisition, she was the oustee of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project and was entitled to the benefits of R&R Scheme. It has further been held by both the Courts below that merely absence of name of plaintiff in Parivar Register on the date of issuance of Section 4 of the Notification would not disentitle her from the benefits of R&R Scheme. 13. As far as the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, no fault can be found. Such findings are borne from the record and cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or unwarranted. 14. Additionally, it is worth-noticing that the plaintiff was awarded the compensation amount for the acquisition of property, which was owned and possessed by her. As per Clause 1.2 of the R&R Scheme, the term “oustee” has been defined. As per this definition, any landowner, who has been deprived of his house or land, or both on account of acquisition proceedings/private negotiation in connection with the construction of Kol Dam Project and entitled to compensation in lieu thereof was an oustee. Even his successors were included in such definition. Thus, plaintiff by all means was an oustee of Kol Dam HEP. 15. Even his successors were included in such definition. Thus, plaintiff by all means was an oustee of Kol Dam HEP. 15. The Resettlement grant, Rehabilitation and Eligible family grants under Clauses 2.1.1 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of the R&R Scheme were made applicable to oustee families, meaning thereby that each family as one unit could avail the benefits of scheme and not each and every individual member of the family would be entitled to benefits under the scheme separately. 16. The defendants, however, propounded an interpretation to above said clauses of R&R Scheme to mean that the grants could be available to only such person whose name was recorded in the family register of concerned Panchayat at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This purportedly has been done by reading Clauses 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of the R&R Scheme alongwith Clause 1.2 (b) thereof, which defined “family.” 17. On minute reading of the definition of “family” it is found that the interpretation so drawn by the defendants is incorrect. The reference in the said definition is to a family having more than one member. It is in this context that the prescription has been made for grant of benefit of the scheme to the families. The purpose must be to avoid disbursement of grants to different persons separately, who otherwise formed one family. 18. Viewed from yet another angle, clause 2.1(b) of the R&Rs, which defines “family” starts as “Family” means husband/wife, who is entered as owner/co-owner of land in the Revenue Record. So, the initial requirement is a person who is entered as owner or co-owner of land in revenue record. The reference to entry in Parivar Register, on the date of Notification under section 4 of the Act, to their children, parents and those brothers and sisters who are living jointly with him/her and such reference is only for the purpose of forming one unit of family to avail the benefits of scheme by the family as a whole. The proviso to the definition of family in the scheme has its own specific area of operation and will become applicable when the benefit of scheme by way of grant of employment is to be given and to avail such benefit one has to have separate family. The purpose again is to avoid grant of benefits to multiple members of same family. The purpose again is to avoid grant of benefits to multiple members of same family. 19. It cannot be taken to mean that where the family includes only a single person, he/she would not be entitled to the benefits of the scheme even though qualified to be an “oustee.” Even a single member can constitute a separate family. In 2009, the name of plaintiff was recorded in the family register maintained by the Gram Panchayat, Harnora as a single member of the family. It was rightly done as the plaintiff after divorce was not obliged to live or reside with her parents or brothers/sisters. She had every right to live separately and constitute the single member family. Even if the single person family does not have his/her name recorded in Parivar Register but was otherwise qualified to be an oustee, he could not be denied the benefits of the scheme. 20. In view of aforesaid discussion, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Even otherwise, nothing has been shown on behalf of the appellant/State that the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below were not warranted by evidence on record. Further, it is not understandable as to how the State was aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree. The responsibility and burden to implement the R&R Scheme was entirely on defendant No. 2, which has chosen not to assail the impugned judgment. 21. In result, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications if any.