The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that the right of land losers to rehabilitation and employment as part of land acquisition benefits is a constitutional entitlement that flows from the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that arbitrary denial of such entitlements violates Articles 14, 15 and 21. The case involved petitioners whose agricultural land was acquired by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) in 2009 for a commercial project, with an understanding that employment opportunities would be provided to displaced landowning families as part of their rehabilitation. When the petitioners applied for employment under the relevant rehabilitation policy, SECL declined to act on their claims, triggering litigation before the High Court. The Court highlighted that the State’s resettlement and rehabilitation policy in force at the time of land acquisition must govern the rights of the affected families, and that subsequent changes in policies or internal guidelines cannot divest individuals of rights already accrued by virtue of acquisition. The Court’s judgment underscored that the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustees is a logical corollary of the right to life and livelihood encompassed within Article 21, and that denial of such benefits constituted an arbitrary act in breach of constitutional guarantees. It emphasised that the acquisition was governed by the applicable state rehabilitation policy, which mandated employment opportunities for each major member of the displaced family, and that SECL’s reliance on subsequent internal criteria that set minimum landholding thresholds was contrary to the statutory policy.
The dispute arose after SECL refused the petitioners’ claims, asserting that they did not meet internal eligibility norms requiring possession of at least two acres of land, and that employment had already been provided to a relative of one of the petitioners. The petitioners contested this reasoning, pointing out that there was no such requirement in the State’s resettlement and rehabilitation policy, which provided that families whose land was acquired should be considered for employment without a rigid minimum landholding condition. The High Court observed that such internally imposed eligibility conditions were inconsistent with the sole statutory policy applicable at the relevant time of acquisition. It further noted that employment awards already made to other family members did not extinguish the separate entitlement of the petitioners. The Court distinguished between internal policy formulations and the statutory state rehabilitation policy, affirming that the latter must prevail in determining entitlements. Drawing on the fundamental principles of fairness, equality and legitimate expectation, the Court held that once a rehabilitation policy has been promulgated by the State and applied at the time of acquisition, its benefits cannot be arbitrarily denied on the basis of later changes or departmental innovations that conflict with the rights conferred under the original policy.
In articulating the constitutional dimensions of the case, the High Court reiterated that the right to livelihood and rehabilitative benefits following loss of land is integral to the right to life under Article 21, and that discriminatory or arbitrary denial of such benefits infringes the equality guarantee under Article 14 as well as the prohibition of discrimination under Article 15. The Court emphasised that statutory rehabilitation policies must be just, fair and reasonable, and that they should operate in a manner consistent with constitutional rights. It criticised the arbitrary denial of employment to eligible land oustees on the basis of internal criteria that were not sanctioned by the statutory policy and were inconsistent with the legislative intent to provide equitable treatment to all land losers irrespective of the size of their holdings.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned rejection by SECL and directed that the petitioners’ claims for employment and rehabilitation be considered in accordance with the state rehabilitation policy operative on the date of land acquisition. The Court’s order reflected a broader principle that governmental and quasi-governmental bodies implementing land acquisition and rehabilitation programs must abide by the dictates of the statutory policy framework, and that accrued rights arising from such policies cannot be undermined by subsequent administrative adjustments. It held that where there is a clear policy promise of employment and other rehabilitative measures attendant to displacement, beneficiaries are entitled to have their claims adjudicated and granted in line with that policy, and that failure to do so constitutes an arbitrary denial of fundamental rights.
The Court’s decision serves as a precedent affirming that land oustees’ rights to rehabilitation assistance and employment pursuant to statutory policy are constitutionally protected and that arbitrary denial of these rights on the basis of internal or later-adopted criteria amounts to a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21. This ruling reinforces the principle that statutory entitlements provided to displaced persons at the time of acquisition cannot be diluted or negated by conflicting administrative practices or policy revisions that dilute the original protections. The High Court’s judgment ensures that affected families who lose their land in the public interest are not left without the rehabilitative and employment benefits that were assured to them as part of the acquisition process, embedding the promise of statutory employment support within the framework of core constitutional rights.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.