Rehabilitation entitlements under an inclusive award extend to major sons and require suitable irrigable land, not land of choice.

A rehabilitation award with an inclusive definition of "family" was applied broadly to affected persons, so temporary and permanent submergence victims were treated alike for rehabilitation purposes. Major sons were recognised as separate entitled families, and where a father had died before the acquisition notification, adult sons stood in the position of landholders in their own right and could claim alternate agricultural land, not merely house sites. The scheme did not give families an absolute right to choose the location of allotment; the entitlement was to suitable irrigable and cultivable land from the land bank, with unsuitability capable of review through the grievance mechanism.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the NWDT Award and the earlier judgment distinguished between persons temporarily affected and persons permanently affected by submergence; (ii) whether adult sons of landholders were entitled to the rehabilitation benefit and a separate minimum allotment of land; (iii) whether adult sons whose fathers had died before the acquisition notification were entitled to alternate land in their own right; and (iv) whether the affected families could insist upon land of their own choice or only upon suitable irrigable and cultivable land.

Issue (i): whether the NWDT Award and the earlier judgment distinguished between persons temporarily affected and persons permanently affected by submergence.

Analysis: The award defined an oustee broadly to include persons ordinarily residing or cultivating in the area likely to be submerged permanently or temporarily. The rehabilitation clause made submergence conditional upon completion of rehabilitation, and the Court earlier directed further construction only pari passu with relief and rehabilitation. The material before the Court, including the State's prior stand and the NCA record, showed that temporary and permanent affectees had been treated alike. The Court rejected the argument that the award or the earlier judgment created a relevant distinction for rehabilitation purposes.

Conclusion: No such distinction survived for purposes of rehabilitation, and both temporarily and permanently affected families were entitled to the benefit of the package.

Issue (ii): whether adult sons of landholders were entitled to the rehabilitation benefit and a separate minimum allotment of land.

Analysis: The award's definition of family expressly included major sons as a separate family. That inclusive definition was read with the rehabilitation clauses and with the earlier judgment recognising entitlement of major sons. A major son was therefore not to be denied a separate unit merely because he had not held land independently. The Court treated the definition as expansive and intended to enlarge, not restrict, entitlement.

Conclusion: Adult sons were entitled to be treated as separate families and to receive the rehabilitation benefit, including the minimum land entitlement where otherwise applicable.

Issue (iii): whether adult sons whose fathers had died before the acquisition notification were entitled to alternate land in their own right.

Analysis: The Court found that, where the fathers had died before the notification, the adult sons stood in the position of landholders in their own right. Since they were within the definition of family and had been specifically treated as eligible in the earlier judgment, they could not be confined to house plots alone. New factual objections not raised before the Grievance Redressal Authority were declined.

Conclusion: Such adult sons were entitled to alternate agricultural land and not merely to house sites.

Issue (iv): whether the affected families could insist upon land of their own choice or only upon suitable irrigable and cultivable land.

Analysis: The Court held that the rehabilitation scheme did not confer an absolute right to demand land at a chosen location. The State's land bank was the normal source of allotment, although the land offered had to be irrigable, cultivable, and otherwise suitable. If the land offered was unsuitable, the matter could be considered by the Grievance Redressal Authority. On the facts, the Court accepted the land available for the Jalsindhi applicants and directed immediate allotment, while leaving the Pichhodi matter for suitable fresh consideration to secure irrigable and cultivable land.

Conclusion: There was no absolute right to choose land, but the allotment had to be of suitable irrigable and cultivable land.

Final Conclusion: The applications succeeded in part: the Court affirmed equal rehabilitation treatment for temporary and permanent affectees, recognised adult sons as separate entitled families, upheld entitlement of certain adult sons to agricultural land, and confined the claim to suitable rehabilitative land rather than land of unfettered choice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rehabilitation award uses an inclusive definition of family and makes submergence conditional on prior rehabilitation, the benefit must be applied broadly to all affected families covered by the text, including temporary affectees and major sons, and allotment must be of suitable irrigable or cultivable land rather than land chosen as of right.

---