The main legal point established in the judgment is that a promise made by the appellants to provide government employment in lieu of acquired land was upheld, and the appellants could not evade their commitment by relying on Rule 24-A.

1. A chunk of land measuring 1 kanal in village Chanunta Tehsil Ramnagar, Distric' U (' lampur, owned by respondent No. 1, was taken over by the appellants in the year 1987-88 for construction of 15000 Gallon water reservoir to supply drinking water to the local population. It is admitted case of the parties that compensation was not paid to the respondent No. 1 in lieu of the aforesaid land. The appellant however, as pleaded by respondent No. 1, made a promise to provide government employment to one of her family members.

2. The respondent No. 1 felt aggrieved when the appellants did not keep their promise and approached the writ Court by riling SWP No. 626/2005. The respondents' case was that because of the promise made and in terms of SRO 181/1988, the appellants have no obligation to provide government employment to one of her family members. It was insisted that no compensation had been paid to respondents after the aforesaid land was taken over and that after the acquisition, she was left with less than one half of agricultural land.

3. The appellants in their reply to the writ petition insisted that only four and a half Marias of land was taken over by them for construction of water reservoir and that the respondent were not entitled to any benefit under SRO 181/1998, inasmuch as they were owners in possession of 19 Kanals and 14 Marias of agricultural land and therefore left with 19th Kanals and 9 and a half Marias after four and a half Marias were taken over by the appellants. The appellants denied that they made any assurance to respondent No. 1 to provide government employ#31;ment to one of her family members in lieu of the land taken over by them. The appellants in the said background defended the consideration order dated 25th July, 2002, whereby respondents claim was considered in compliance of writ court Judgement dated 12.02.2002 rendered in SWP No. 168/2002, earlier filed by the respondent No. 1. It was further pleaded that as SRO 181/1988 was rescinded by SRO 124/1991 dated 11th July, 1991, the rescinded SRO (181/1988) was of no help to respondents.

4. Learned Single Judge on going through the pleadings and the record, lamented that a land in question owned by a war widow was taken over in 1987-88, without following the procedure laid down under Land Acquisition Act and that for about two decades neither any compensation was paid to the respondent No. 1 nor one of her family members was given government employment. The stand taken by the appellants that only four and a half Marias of respondent No. 1's proprietary land was taken over was found to be belied by the record maintained by the appellants, including the report received from the revenue agency. Learned Single Judge while rejecting the argument putforth by the appellants that once SRO 181/1988 was rescinded by SRO 214/1991, the respondent No. 1 could not claim any right under the rescinded SRO referred to the Division Bench Judgment in LP A (SW) No. 309/1996 decided on 29th December, 1999. The LPA Court relying on Calcutta Port Trust v. Deba Prasad Bag, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 454 and Hari Ram v. State and Ore., 1993 (3) SCT 87, held that "the concept to give appointment to a person whose land is acquired is a concept which has been judicially recognized" and that estate holder would be well within his rights to contend that up to the issuance of SRO 214/1991, he was entitled to get government employment in terms of the earlier SRO.

5. The writ Court was not impressed by the contention that the land taken over was not more than 50% of the total agricultural land held by the respondents. It was pointed out that as per the revenue record, the Khewat No. 414 comprising 19 Kanals and 14 Marias was not in exclusive ownership of respondent No. 1, but coshared by other co-sharers and that the share of respondent No. 1 came to two Kanals out of which one Kanal was taken over by the appellants for construction of water reservoir. The writ Court, accordi