Entitlement to Resettlement Benefits may be Reconsidered via Fresh Representation Despite Interim Removal from Revenue Records_

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.03.2012 and a direction to respondents to provide benefits under the Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Policy, 2002.

The petitioner claimed entitlement to compensation and employment, asserting that although his name was removed from revenue records during land acquisition proceedings, it was later restored by the Commissioner in 2008.

The State and the respondent company argued that at the time of acquisition, the land was recorded in the name of the MP State, and the petitioner was neither an "oustee" nor an "encroacher".

They further cited precedent from a Coordinate Bench (WP No. 19150/2011) where similar claims in adjoining areas were quashed.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Policy of 2002 despite his name being absent from revenue records at the time of land acquisition finalization.

2. Whether the court should grant liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Collector for valuation and compensation in light of previous judicial observations.

The court's decision was guided by the State's Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Policy, 2002, which governs compensation and employment for displaced persons.

It also relied on judicial discipline and the principle of consistency, adopting the framework established by a Coordinate Bench in *WP No. 19150/2011*, which held that even if a petitioner's primary claim is quashed, they may retain the liberty to approach the Collector for specific valuation of private constructions (houses, wells, etc.) made on the property in question.

The Court observed that the land acquisition proceedings were already concluded and the land occupied by the company while the petitioner’s name was absent from the Khasra entries.

While the respondents argued that the petitioner had no standing because the Khasra was in the State's name at the relevant time, the Court noted the petitioner's request to not press the petition on merits but seeking instead the liberty to file a representation.

Drawing a parallel to the directions issued in *WP No. 19150/2011*, the Court found it appropriate to allow the petitioner to seek a remedy through administrative channels (the Collector) rather than adjudicating the complex factual dispute regarding the petitioner's status as an oustee or encroacher at this stage.

It held that the petitioner is granted liberty to submit a representation to the Collector within four weeks, modeled after the observations in *WP No. 19150/2011*.

The Collector is directed to decide the representation within 90 days in accordance with the law and applicable policy, considering the material on record.

All other requested reliefs were denied.