Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Sanjeev Kumar – Petitioner
VERSUS
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(S) For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 30798 of 2025
Decided On : 07-11-2025
Land Acquisition Act, 1894[Now, Act of 2013] – Section 4 – Acquisition of land – Under provisions of the Act, on land being acquired, petitioner or his family is entitled only to compensation which has already been paid – There is no provision for grant of job in lieu of acquired land – Policy decision of giving job in lieu of acquired land cannot prevail over statutory provisions and as such, no error or illegality on part of authorities and High Court in dismissing claim of petition for job, which was filed after more than 18 years of framing of policy. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Land of the family of the petitioner is said to have been acquired in the year 1998 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Family of petitioner was awarded compensation and same was also paid. Petitioner who was not even born at the time when the land was acquired, in the year 2025, applied for a job in lieu of acquired land. Request was rejected and the petition filed by the petitioner seeking job in lieu of the land was also dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The land of the family of the petitioner is said to have been acquired in the year 1998 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’). The family of the petitioner was awarded compensation and the same was also paid. The petitioner who was not even born at the time when the land was acquired, in the year 2025, applied for a job in lieu of the acquired land. The request was rejected and the petition filed by the petitioner seeking job in lieu of the land was also dismissed.
3. Under the provisions of the Act, on the land being acquired, the petitioner or his family is entitled only to the compensation which has already been paid. There is no provision for grant of job in lieu of the acquired land. The policy decision, if any, of giving job in lieu of the acquired land cannot prevail over the statutory provisions and as such, we find no error or illegality on the part of the authorities and the High Court in dismissing the claim of the petition for job, which was filed after more than 18 years of the framing of the policy.
4. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
