The enforceability of a policy decision of the State Government in favor of land oustees under the Land Acquisition Act and the importance of providing appropriate jobs and timely rehabilitation to oustees.

S.K.Katriar, J.

1. The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 22.1.2004, passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2745 of 1999, whereby the writ petition was allowed, and the State Government has been directed to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post in terms of the policy decision of the State Government as an additional relief to the land oustees whose lands had been acquired for the Bilasi Jalashaya Project in the district of Banka.

2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The writ petitioner was the owner of certain areas of land. The State Government decided to acquire whole of his land, apart from the lands of many others, for creation of Bilasi Jalashaya Project in the district of Banka. Proceedings commenced under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The whole of the land of the writ petitioner with house, well etc. measuring 2.75 acres in Village-Kojhi were acquired under the provisions of the Act for the said irrigation project. The State Government in the Department of Water Resources had issued resolution bearing memo no. 1212. dated 18.9.1993, in the nature of a policy decision that such oustees of land under the Act may be appointed on Class-Ill or Class- IV post in the Bihar Government. The writ petitioner (the respondent herein) submitted his representation dated 2.7.1998 to the Director, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, for his appointment on a suitable post as envisaged by policy decision. The representation further stated that the compensation amount determined under the Act may be paid to him immediately, the relevant portion of which is quoted hereinbelow: ft^r f, fa %& wm^r f^^tm ^ *jpr ^n o^fa faerrcft ^rm^ ^(ViM-ii ^ *$** "^ ^^ ^n^ ^ 3^ ^ ^ M ti ^ iprttt -tjTiff Tjnj ^ xj fapjrftRt ^t ?fa^q Tf ferJSTrfofff =R ^fNf tfl ^FTPrq i%l it T\i & irq f3*anf*r

Inaction on the part of the authorities led to the writ petition where the State Government raised the plea that the writ petitioner cannot be appointed on some job due to "resource crunch" of the State Government. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the State. Hence the instant appeal at the instance of the State Government.

3. Learned Government Pleader submits that it is not possible to give employment to such a large number of land oustees. He next submits that the only compensation envisaged in law under the Act has already been paid to him. He lastly submits that the policy decision does not create any enforceable right in favour of the land oustee. He relies on the judgment of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ravindra Kumar V/s. District Magistrate, reported in 2004- S.C.S.R. 253.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has supported the order on the writ petition. He submits that the policy decision of the Government is enforceable in law. He relies on the following reported judgments:

(i) The Union of India and Others V/s. M/s Anglo Afghan Agencies, reported in A.I.R. 1968 SC 718.

(ii) Cooper Engineering Ltd. V/s. D.S. Aney, reported in A.I.R. 1973 SC 2232.

(iii) A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. V/s. State of Kerala, reported in (2007)2 SCC 725.

(iv) Sunil Pannalal Banthia V/s. City and Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd. reported in A.I.R. 2007 SC 1529.

4.1. He has also made submissions on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.D. Jayal V/s. Union of India, reported in (2004)9 SCC 362, paragraph 60.

5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Law is well settled that a policy decision of the State Government does create legal rights and liabilities and can be enforced through the Court. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has rightly relied on the judgment of th