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

The appellant’s family land was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the land-acquisition laws for establishing a Thermal Power Plant, with TANGEDCO acting as the requisitioning body.

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

The appellant and other land-losers later sought employment in TANGEDCO, asserting that employment had been promised at the time of acquisition.

Their applications were not considered, leading to writ petitions.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds of delay and absence of an enforceable right.

The appellant challenged that order in the present writ appeal.

The Division Bench also noted that an earlier contempt appeal, Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2020, had been allowed on 08 June 2022 by setting aside directions issued for providing employment.

Whether the land-losers had an enforceable or vested right to employment in TANGEDCO on the basis of the alleged promise made at the time of acquisition.

Whether applications for employment made approximately 18 years after acquisition, and by members whose eligibility was disputed, could be sustained.

Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petitions seeking employment on the grounds of delay and absence of an established legal right.

Compensation under the applicable land-acquisition law is a statutory right payable to affected landowners, whereas provision of alternate land, where promised, arises from the applicable governmental scheme or assurance.

Employment to a member of a land-loser’s family is not an automatic or vested legal right; it is only a concession that may be considered by the Government or acquiring authority on a priority basis, subject to the applicable terms and conditions.

A claim made after an excessive and unexplained delay is liable to be rejected, particularly where the claimant has not established eligibility or an enforceable right.

The Court found that the landowners had already received statutory compensation in 2004 and alternate lands in 2010 and 2012, and that these facts were undisputed.

Even assuming that employment had been considered as a rehabilitation measure, the Court held that such employment could not be claimed as an absolute or vested right.

The applications were made nearly 18 years after acquisition, and several were submitted by allegedly ineligible family members, including sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, grandchildren, or other claimants whose eligibility had not been established.

In these circumstances, the delay, the prior settlement of compensation and alternate land, and the absence of a legally enforceable entitlement justified dismissal of the claims.

The Court found that the learned Single Judge had applied the governing principles correctly and that no appellate interference was warranted.

The belated employment claim, made approximately 18 years after acquisition and unsupported by an established legal entitlement, was unsustainable.

The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.