Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma held that the State must reconsider the claims of displaced families seeking employment under the rehabilitation scheme, affirming that the rejection of their applications as time-barred was unsustainable . Addressing the dispute over appointments sought by dependants of land-losers affected by a major irrigation project, the Court noted that in society, land carries a deep emotional bond, and when it is taken for public purposes on the assurance of providing a job to a family member, the Government is obligated to honour that promise without relying on procedural hurdles. The Bench added that although compassionate appointment is not an inherent right, once a rehabilitation policy is framed, the State is required to implement it faithfully.

The matter concerns the challenge to the rejection of employment claims made by families displaced due to land acquisition for the Telugu Ganga Project. The petitioners' lands were acquired around 1984, and they were physically displaced in 2005 when water entered their lands. A rehabilitation scheme issued provided for employment to one eligible member of each displaced family, originally requiring applications within one year of displacement.

Also Read: Commercial Use Cannot Be Forced For Sanctioning Building Plans : Supreme Court Dismisses SDMC Appeal, Orders Residential Rebuild Approval And ₹10 Lakh Cost

The petitioners’ names were included in the “eligible master list” prepared in 2009 after verification. Several similarly placed individuals were earlier granted employment pursuant to orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal including those ranked below the petitioners in the same list. The petitioners submitted representations in 2018 seeking consideration of their claims.

The State contended that the petitioners were barred by limitation, asserting that applications ought to have been filed before 18.09.2006, being one year from the date of actual displacement. The authorities rejected their applications on 02.01.2019 citing both limitation and absence of supporting documents such as “original proof of award, no earning members in the family, financial status certificate, educational qualifications certificates, dependants certificates”.

.

The Court recorded that the petitioners were “family members of the displaced persons and their valuable lands were required by the Government for the purpose of construction of Telugu Ganga Project during the year 1984.” It noted that although the lands were acquired before 1986, “their families were displaced from the said lands in the year 2005 when the project commenced with operation and when the water entered into their lands.”

The Bench stated that the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.98 originally required applications within one year of displacement, but “the State Government after careful consideration of the matter, have decided to relax the said condition” through Memo dated 24.08.1987. It further observed that “the Administrative Tribunal had passed several orders directing the State Authorities to consider the case of the displaced persons without reference to one year time stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.98.”

The Court recorded that some applicants in O.A.No.9807 of 2009 were “placed below than the writ petitioners herein in the ‘master eligibility list’… however… they were appointed under displaced persons category.” It observed that the authorities had earlier admitted in their counter that the petitioners’ names were placed in the eligibility list and “the claim of the petitioners will be considered as and when vacancies arose.”

Referring to the Division Bench judgment in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, the Court quoted: “The Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion… We do not find any injustice… warranting interference.” It recorded that the State’s challenge in SLP was dismissed on 04.07.2011, rendering the Tribunal’s interpretation final.

Regarding the later government memos, the Bench stated that they “cannot override the effect of G.O.Ms.No.98… and Memo No.480-LAR(2)/87-2.” It further recorded that “what is stated in the Memos relied by the learned Government Pleader have no relevance to the petitioners’ case.”

The Bench also observed that while compassionate appointments are generally not a matter of right, “when a policy/scheme is formulated… the State authorities are duty bound to implement the policy/scheme in true letter and spirit.” It recorded that displaced families often have deep emotional connection to their land, noting that they “love it like their mother.” The Court concluded that the State’s rejection was “unsustainable, untenable and contrary to the settled law.”

Also Read: Land Assignment To Serving Soldiers Valid; National-Gratitude Purpose Cannot Be Diluted By Bureaucracy; AP High Court Quashes Collector’s Refusal To Permit Sale

The Division Bench recorded that “the action of the State Authorities in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners is unsustainable, untenable and contrary to the settled law. There is no substance in the contention of the State that the order of the learned single Judge is illegal and erroneous. The learned single Judge has considered all aspects and passed a reasoned order. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere into the same.”

“Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.” It further recorded that “there shall be no order as to costs” and “miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: M. R. Tagore, Advocate

Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010135942023
Case Number: Writ Appeal No.356 of 2023
Bench: Justice Battu Devanand; Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma