Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Vikas Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)
The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondents to extend them employment in view of policy decision.
2. The State of Haryana in 1984 declared a policy with respect to acquisition of land. As per said policy, the owners/family members of owners of the land were entitled to job in case of acquisition of their land. A similar policy dated 07.04.1992 came to be framed by Panipat Thermal Power Plant. As per said policy, the Power Plant had to give job to a family member whose land is acquired. The land of forefathers of petitioners came to be acquired by Panipat Thermal Power Plant in 1992. As per policy, the Power Plant extended employment to many owners of land, however, no job was offered to forefathers of the petitioners. The petitioners, at this stage, are claiming employment on the ground that land of their forefathers was acquired, however, they were not given job as per policy.
3. Mr. Narender K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners submits that petitioners have made representation before the respondent seeking employment in terms of aforesaid policy. The policy w
Delay and laches can bar a petitioner from seeking redress, and the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to....
Claims for employment under rehabilitation schemes must be pursued timely; belated claims violate constitutional provisions and are liable to dismissal.
The High Court may refuse relief due to delay and laches, particularly when third-party rights have accrued, prioritizing timely claims and the integrity of past compensations.
The discretionary nature of the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the limitations of review petitions.
No statutory provision for employment in lieu of acquired land; only compensation payable. Policy decisions providing jobs cannot override Land Acquisition Act, rendering them illegal.
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
Claims for employment related to land acquisition must comply with statutory provisions, and significant delays can bar such claims.
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
