Employment for land losers is a concession, not an absolute or vested right.

The appellant’s family lands were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for establishing a thermal power plant, with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as the requisitioning body.

Statutory compensation was paid to the landowners in 2004, and alternate lands were subsequently provided in 2010 and 2012.

The appellant claimed that, in addition to compensation and alternate land, the authorities had promised employment to one member of each displaced family in the Electricity Board.

Applications seeking such employment were not considered, leading to writ petitions.

The writ court dismissed the petitions on the grounds of delay and absence of an enforceable right.

The appellant challenged that decision in the present writ appeal.

The respondents contended that employment had never formed part of the acquisition scheme and that applications were made approximately 18 years after acquisition, including by ineligible family members.

Whether the appellant or the members of the land-losing families possessed an enforceable or vested right to employment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO merely because their lands had been acquired for a thermal power project.

Whether applications for employment made approximately 18 years after acquisition, compensation, and grant of alternate land were liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and want of an established right.

Whether the writ court’s dismissal of the petitions disclosed any error warranting interference in writ appeal.

Compensation for compulsory acquisition is a statutory right under the applicable land-acquisition law, whereas employment to a member of a land-losing family is a concession or policy benefit, subject to the governing terms and conditions, and does not constitute an automatic, absolute, or vested right.

The Court further applied the principle that stale claims cannot ordinarily be enforced through writ jurisdiction, particularly where the claimant has not established a subsisting legal right and the relevant benefits of compensation and alternate land have already been provided.

The Court also noted the binding effect of the Division Bench decision in Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2020, dated 8 June 2022, which had set aside directions requiring the Board to provide employment.

The Court distinguished between the statutory entitlement to compensation and the claimed benefit of employment.

Compensation had been paid, and alternate lands had been granted in 2010 and 2012; therefore, the recognised benefits arising from the acquisition had already been substantially addressed.

The alleged promise of employment was not shown to arise from any applicable acquisition scheme or enforceable legal provision.

Even assuming that eligible family members could receive priority consideration under a policy, such consideration did not create an absolute or vested right to appointment.

The applications were also made about 18 years after the 2004 acquisition, and several were submitted by persons who were not eligible members under the relevant scheme.

In these circumstances, the writ court correctly declined relief, and no ground for appellate interference was established.

Employment in such circumstances was only a concession subject to policy and eligibility conditions, and the belated applications were unsustainable.

The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.