Employment for land losers is a concession, not an enforceable 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 (“TNEB”) as the requisitioning body.

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

Nearly 18 years after the acquisition, members of the land-losers’ families sought employment in TNEB, alleging that employment had been promised along with alternate land.

The writ petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge on the grounds of delay and failure to establish a legal right.

The present writ appeal challenged the order dated 06.03.2024 in W.P. No. 562 of 2023.

The respondents also relied on the Division Bench judgment dated 08.06.2022 in Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2020, which had set aside directions requiring implementation of employment-related orders.

Compensation under the applicable land-acquisition law is a statutory entitlement, whereas employment to members of land-loser families is, at most, a concession or preferential consideration subject to the governing scheme and eligibility conditions, and not an absolute or vested right.

The Court further applied the principles of delay and laches, holding that an employment claim raised approximately 18 years after acquisition is unsustainable, particularly where compensation and alternate land had already been provided.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment beyond the reference to the earlier Division Bench decision in Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2020.

The Court distinguished between the statutory right to receive acquisition compensation and the non-statutory, conditional nature of employment assistance.

Since compensation had been paid in 2004 and alternate lands had been allotted in 2010 and 2012, the land-losers’ recognised statutory and rehabilitative benefits had already been addressed.

The alleged promise of employment could not create an absolute right, particularly when employment was not shown to have formed part of the acquisition scheme and the claims were raised only after about 18 years.

The Court also noted that several applications were made by ineligible family members and that even eligible members could not claim employment as a vested entitlement.

Consequently, the Single Judge’s dismissal was found to be consistent with the applicable legal principles.

The delayed employment claim, made approximately 18 years after acquisition and after receipt of compensation and alternate land, was unsustainable.

Finding no infirmity in the order dated 06.03.2024 in W.P. No. 562 of 2023, the Court dismissed the writ appeal, imposed no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.