Dismissed

Sonu Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2014CWP/13974/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking employment for dependents of land oustees. It held that the 1985 Policy allowed employment for only one family member on compassionate grounds, the 2007 Announcement did not apply to the specific 1982 acquisition, and the claim was barred after over 30 years.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus for issuance of employment dismissed.

Sonu Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

KUMAR MANOJ #1# 2015.02.06 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

CWP No.13974 of 2014 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

¶4

AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP No.13974 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.7.2014

¶6

Sonu Kumar and Others

¶7

.............Petitioners

¶8

¶9

State of Haryana and Others

¶10

.............Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶12

Present:- Mr. Sushil Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Jaswant Singh,J

¶14

Petitioners, who are claiming themselves to be the dependents of the Oustees of the land acquired in the year 1982 for setting up of Thermal Power Plant, Yamuna Nagar, have filed the present writ petition for issuance of a Mandamus to the respondents to provide employment to them.

¶15

It is contended that in view of the Policy decision dated 06.05.1985 (P.1) as well as the Announcement made by the Chief Minister, Haryana on 19.5.2007 (P.2), the petitioners are entitled for employment on compassionate ground as well as compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month until employment is provided in view of the compulsory acquisition of the land for the Thermal Plants in the State of Haryana.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the paper book, this Court finds no merit in the petition and the

¶17

#2#

¶18

CWP No.13974 of 2014 (O&M)

¶19

same deserves dismissal.

¶20

It is apparent from the Policy decision (P.1) that in the year 1985, it was decided by the then Haryana State Electricity Board (for short “HSEB”) to provide employment to the dependents of the owners of the land, in case, their livelihood is taken away on account of the acquisition and that too was restricted only to one member of the . family on compassionate grounds

¶21

So far as the Announcement dated 19.5.2007 (P.2) is concerned, the same is regarding the dependents of oustees of the land for setting up of Kheddar Thermal Power Station and is not related to the acquisition proceedings initiated for setting up of Yamuna Nagar, Thermal Plants in the year 1982. It is not the case of the petitioners that there was any breach of the Policy Instructions (P.1) by the respondents at the relevant time or any claim of the petitioners remained undecided.

¶22

Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that a period of more than 30 years has already expired, no ground for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents is made out for providing employment to the petitioners at such a belated stage.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

July 21, 2014 manoj

¶25

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

Sonu Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana &Ors

Hari Kishan Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Yogesh Mahajan Vs State Information Commission Haryana & Ors.

Rajnish Kumar Mehta Vs Pspcl and Ors.

Vijender Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajeshwar Dhame Vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and Anr.