Claims for employment under land acquisition rehabilitation schemes cannot be entertained after significant delay and laches, as such policies are intended for immediate, time-bound relief rather than creating a permanent, vested, or legal right to employment.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner as per agreement dated 20.01.1979, the rehabilitation scheme dated 18.11.1993 (Annexure P-1) and subsequent decision of Punjab Government in the meeting held on 24.08.2000. Further, a writ of prohibition has been sought restraining the respondent-authorities from making any further appointment on Class-IV posts and to grant employment to the petitioner being oustee of Ranjit Sagar Dam in terms of agreement dated 20.01.1979.

2. Brief facts of the case, emerging from the petition, are that in order to construct Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, which was initially known as Thien Dam Project, the land belonging to the States of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir was acquired between 1972-73 to 1998-99. Pursuant to the acquisition of land, an agreement was entered into on 20.01.1979 between the Chief Executives of the then States, i.e. the Chief Ministers. After the agreement, two separate rehabilitation policies dated 18.11.1993 were issued i.e. one with respect to the State of Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir and another for the oustees of State of Himachal Pradesh. One of the main objectives of these policies was to immediately rehabilitate the affected families by providing employment to one member per eligible oustee family as class IV employee in order to overcome the financial hardship. The families who were found eligible for being provided employment as Class-IV employee at that point of time were identified.

3. Before appointment, the interviews were held between 1997-98. Initially, CWP-8733-2000 was filed by the residents of the then State of Jammu & Kashmir, which was disposed of by directing the respondent to consider their claim. However, all of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition were not issued appointment letters. There was second round of litigation with lead case being CWP-8903-2003, in which this Court held that one member of the affected family shall be given appointment as and when the ban is lifted. Thereafter, contempt petitions were filed. Again, there was one more round of litigation wherein the Government gave the assurance that efforts will be made to consider everyone's claim. In the fourth round of litigation, CWP-787-2008, titled as “ Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others ”, decided on 26.11.2009 was filed by those who had been interviewed on two different occasions during 1997-98 but were never appointed. The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-6). It is the case of the petitioner that 100% land of the grandfather of the petitioner situated in khasra No.1567 along with his residential house situated in village Ponda, Tehsil Basohli and Kathua was acquired for the purpose of construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam. Petitioner moved a representation dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-10) to respondent No.4 for grant of employment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy dated 18.11.1993, however, no action has been taken thereon till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that land of the grandfather and father of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam, therefore, father of the petitioner was also issued Dam Affected Certificate and his name figured in the list of Dam affected persons. He further contended that petitioner being the s