A job supply to an oustee of land acquired for some mission is “a concession and not a vested right”, the Punjab and Haryana excessive court docket has held on the pleas from oustees of the Ranjit Sagar dam.

“…the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not require the acquiring authority or the beneficiary of the acquisition to ensure employment to the oustees or their family members. Hence, the offer of employment is not in lieu of compensation which is equivalent to the market value and the amount of solatium but in addition thereto,” the court observed adding that such a policy is in nature of “concession offered by the executive to reduce the impact of their dislocation from their place of residence or occupation”.

The judgment got here from the HC bench of justice Anil Kshetarpal on 107 petitions from outstees from three states — Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir. All pleas have been dismissed.

The displaced had been of the areas acquired for building of the Ranjit Sagar dam mission, also called Thien dam mission. As per data, 11,250 acres had been acquired in Punjab, 1,226 acres in Himachal Pradesh and 13,820 acres in erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir between 1972-73 and 1998-99. In 1979, the settlement for the mission was signed and in 90s, the affected individuals had been additionally promised jobs.

For jobs, 769 households had been recognized in Punjab, 767 in Jammu and Kashmir and 493 households in Himachal Pradesh. As per the federal government, one member of every of the 720 households in Punjab, 793 in Jammu and Kashmir, and 494 households in Himachal Pradesh acquired jobs.

These petitions had been from those that had been co-sharers/joint households, the place just one individual acquired the job, the proportion of land was much less or another related classes, pending since 2011.

The authorities stand was that considerably giant variety of oustees had been given employment and “genuine oustees” had already been thought-about.

The bench noticed that the thing of the coverage was to supply instant assist to the household of the oustees, which after a passage of over twenty years ceased to exist. It additionally took a be aware of the truth that petitioners’ names had been additionally not there in authentic lists and earlier than 2011, they’d not raised this demand.

“The employment below the oustee quota shouldn’t be one other common supply of recruitment. It is within the nature of an exception which has been carved out as a way to present aid in particular/distinctive circumstances. Hence, the exception can’t be permitted to turn into a common rule,” the bench further said cautioning courts that while dealing with such issues they are expected to maintain a balance between the claims of the oustees who have woken up from a “deep slumber” on the one hand and expectations of the unemployed youth who’re in dire have to get civil posts significantly in view of rampant unemployment alternatively.