New Delhi: In a decisive judgment that reinforces the supremacy of statutory law over policy decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals whose family land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are not automatically entitled to a job as compensation. The ruling makes it clear that monetary compensation remains the sole statutory remedy under the archaic Act.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale delivered the verdict while dismissing an appeal filed by a petitioner from Haryana who sought a government job.
Background of the Case
The case centered on a request for employment made by a man whose family land was acquired by the government in 1998, nearly three decades ago, and before the petitioner himself was born. The family had previously been awarded and paid the legally mandated compensation package at the time of acquisition.
Despite the compensation being settled, the petitioner moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and subsequently the Supreme Court, arguing for a job in lieu of the acquired property—a practice sometimes covered under state-specific rehabilitation policies.
Statutory Provisions Prevail
The Supreme Court bench firmly rejected the plea. In its observation, the Court stated that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are explicit: once land is acquired, the landowner or their family is only entitled to compensation, which had already been disbursed in this case.
Crucially, the Court asserted, “There is no provision for grant of job in lieu of the acquired land” under the governing statute. The bench further clarified a critical legal principle, stating that any existing policy decision aimed at offering employment in lieu of acquired land cannot override or supersede the express provisions laid down in the statute itself.
The Court also noted the excessive delay in filing the claim, observing that the petitioner’s request was made more than 18 years after the relevant employment policy was framed.
The dismissal by the apex court serves as a major clarification, confirming that relief in land acquisition cases must align strictly with the provisions of the primary legislation. While states can offer rehabilitation packages, these policies cannot create rights that contradict or go beyond what the central Act permits.
